Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

Peace Process

Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on the peace process.

Judy Mallaber: If he will make a statement on progress with the peace process.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, let me say that it is unfair to Members who are here for Northern Ireland questions for so many conversations to be taking place. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber if they wish to make conversation.

Paul Murphy: There were significant developments in the peace process last week, and further progress over the weekend. However, it did not prove possible to resolve outstanding differences—despite the excellent efforts of General de Chastelain and his colleagues—over decommissioning in a manner that would create public confidence on all sides. But we sincerely hope that after the elections conditions will be created that will permit a working Executive to be formed and all aspects of the joint declaration to be taken forward.

Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that after the elections the regrettably interrupted negotiations to complete the peace settlement need to be resumed as soon as possible, and that the people of both Britain and Northern Ireland will expect all sides to make every effort to reach a conclusion so that we can see peace in our islands?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Obviously, after the elections we need to address the issues that were left unfinished over the past weeks. However, I want to make it clear to the House, as I did in last week's statement, that a lot of progress has been made. There has been engagement between parties that has not occurred before, and there was improvement as regards decommissioning. However, my hon. Friend is right that we now have elections before us. I urge every voter in Northern Ireland to exercise his or her franchise and democratic right in these particularly important elections so that, at the end of that process, they have an Assembly which is representative of all the people of Northern Ireland and which, as a consequence of the election, can produce an Executive to govern Northern Ireland in place of government by direct rule.

Judy Mallaber: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever our views on the events of recent days, there has been considerable progress as a result of the peace process? Many lives have been saved; there has been increased investment as a result of the improved security situation; and life is quite normal in many parts of Northern Ireland, as I witnessed on a recent visit. Will my right hon. Friend continue to impress on all parties their responsibility to continue with that progress up to and after the elections?

Paul Murphy: Indeed I will. My hon. Friend is quite right—if one looks at peace processes throughout the world and compares them with what has occurred in Northern Ireland, one can see that there have been improvements in the lives of ordinary people, the number of jobs, and the number of deaths as a result of terrorist crime that are not occurring. Moreover, Northern Ireland is now the fastest-growing region in the United Kingdom and tourism is improving. All those factors point to a more stable society resulting from the Good Friday agreement. Although we have had our difficulties in the past weeks, we are still moving forward all the time, and the election process is part of that.

David Trimble: Does the Secretary of State agree that if the sequence that it was necessary for me to put on hold last Tuesday is to be resumed at any point in future and carried through, it is essential that in the next few weeks of the election campaign republicans abide very clearly by the commitments to peaceful means that they made at that stage? It is also highly desirable that republicans engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to repair the mistakes on transparency and agree the necessary timetable for the completion of decommissioning.

Paul Murphy: I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that progress was made as regards the statement by the president of Sinn Fein and that it was an improvement on what we saw in the spring. I think he would also agree that the IRA's engagement with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was an important and significant development. I think he would also agree about the nature of the decommissioning event this time, which General de Chastelain referred to as being considerably greater than the two previous events, and would welcome the decommissioning of weapons which, if used, would have resulted in death and destruction on a huge scale. I know that he is concerned about transparency and, indeed, public confidence, but I hope that those issues will be addressed in the coming weeks and that we move forward.

Gregory Campbell: As the Secretary of State has given the House assurances on previous occasions, can he confirm that he has confidence in the process that began in 1998? Can he give the House an assurance that he will give equal support to, and has equal confidence in, the process that will evolve after the elections on 26 November, so that it can reach a better conclusion than the old process?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is to be a review of the agreement after the election. Indeed, that is part of the agreement itself—paragraph 8 ensures that the review must take place. In the course of that review, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will, of course, be able to put forward the various points that they consider important. Obviously, we have to await the result of the elections on 26 November. However, I will say to the hon. Gentleman that I still believe, and it is the Government's firm view, that the Good Friday agreement is the best way forward—indeed, the only way forward—in Northern Ireland.

Jackie Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend take the view that despite the confusion that appeared to emanate from Northern Ireland earlier in the week, the act of decommissioning that has taken place is much greater than anything that has gone before?

Paul Murphy: As I made clear to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I believe that it was a greater act of decommissioning than we have seen before. I also believe that the engagement on the issues of the day between political parties in Northern Ireland over the past few months is of such significance that everybody in Northern Ireland must draw hope from it; and that on 27 November, when we return to politics in Northern Ireland, we will return to devolution so that the people of Northern Ireland can be governed by people from Northern Ireland in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.

Quentin Davies: Does the Secretary of State think that politicians who lie, and are therefore distrusted, are well placed to conclude negotiations?

Paul Murphy: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the issue that was addressed by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), earlier this week. The most important thing that those of us who are involved in Northern Ireland must now do is look towards the future to ensure that the elections held in Northern Ireland produce a democratic Assembly and that we have peace in Northern Ireland.
	I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be returning to his position on the Front Bench next time we meet for Question Time—we shall have to wait and see. I know that he is committed to the Good Friday agreement, but I am sometimes troubled that Conservative Members, instead of trying to help the peace process, are more concerned with scoring cheap party political points.

Quentin Davies: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has another question. I firmly tell him that he must use moderate language.

Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall chair the proceedings in this House.

Quentin Davies: I always try to use moderate language, Mr. Speaker, and try not to apply unparliamentary terms to named Members of the House of Commons.
	Last week, the Prime Minister told the House:
	"I believe, on the basis of what we know, that people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 634.]
	Next day, General de Chastelain said: "I gave them"—the Prime Ministers—
	"no more details than I have told you."
	Who is right?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that, in relation to General de Chastelain, the issue of confidentiality cannot be breached publicly. He is also aware that both the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister met General de Chastelain in Hillsborough castle—for something approaching an hour, I believe—to discuss the issues regarding decommissioning. He is also aware that the written public statement by General de Chastelain was very short. It is obvious, however, that someone who spends that amount of time dealing with an issue may form an opinion about what has happened that is very different from the bare statement that appears afterwards.

Iain Luke: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will, like all hon. Members, welcome the successful conclusion in respect of the elections in November. With the restart of the peace process, will he reaffirm the Government's view that it will be successfully concluded, first, by a statement by the IRA saying that it is giving up warlike activities for ever and irretrievably and, secondly, by complete adherence to a transparent and progressed schedule on decommissioning?

Paul Murphy: I addressed some of those matters earlier and I share some of the views that my hon. Friend expressed. They are an important part of some of the issues before the people in Northern Ireland in the next five weeks. However, it is also important to emphasise that they will want to vote on the way in which they believe their hospitals will be managed, their schools run, their transport system tackled and so on. The elections are also about producing devolution in Northern Ireland so that we can have the Assembly and the Executive back.

Assembly Elections

Bob Spink: If he will make a statement on the political negotiations relating to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Paul Murphy: As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), there have been significant developments in the peace process. We announced last week that elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly will be held on Wednesday 26 November.

Bob Spink: But central to the negotiations and elections must be genuine decommissioning, truth, honesty and lack of deception. Will the Secretary of State therefore cut the spin and tell the House who was telling the truth—the Prime Minister or General de Chastelain?

Paul Murphy: I dealt with those issues earlier and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree tackled them earlier this week. However, I repeat that the issues before the people of Northern Ireland are the elections and the future afterwards. I only wish the Conservative party understood that. The problem is that it does not. In the months and years that have gone by, the lack of a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland has not helped but hindered the peace process.

Seamus Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the major problems with the election is that the electorate know that they are not the final arbiters? They know full well that whatever they decide on 26 November and whatever the political parties decide subsequently, both outcomes have to receive the imprimatur of the Ulster Unionist council and the IRA army council. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the two Governments will take steps to ensure that we are not in hock for ever to those two groups and that we will not have our futures decided by the men in balaclavas and the men in bowler hats?

Paul Murphy: There is no answer to that really, is there? I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about inclusivity in the discussions and the peace process, and I know that the Social Democratic and Labour party in particular, but other parties too, have been disappointed in the past few weeks. I am sure that he agrees that we must continue to tackle the issues that were central to the parties' discussions in those weeks and ensure that there is trust and confidence between the parties. I believe that the review of the agreement after the elections will provide the basis for inclusivity and the involvement of all parties. Of course, we await the outcome of the elections, but I want to re-emphasise the importance of the SDLP to the process, especially with regard to policing in Northern Ireland.

Lembit �pik: At one point in the negotiations, the Prime Minister said that if we all knew what he knew, we would all sign up to the process. Subsequently, Downing street itself demoted the Prime Minister's knowledge to an informed guess. The crucial question is whether the Prime Minister had insider knowledge. If so, where did he get it? Will the Secretary of State assure us that in future all the pro-agreement parties such as the SDLP and the Alliance party will not be excluded from the negotiations? I firmly believe that their inclusion would have avoided the difficulties that we observed last week.

Paul Murphy: I do not know what would have happened; no one does. However, we have to try and try again in Northern Ireland. If we fail on one occasion, we must pick up the pieces and start all over again. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about what constitutes the central question, which is ensuring that the elections are held and that we move to period of stability in Northern Ireland in which we can resolve the difficulties and have an Executive up and running.

Kevin McNamara: If it is a question of trust, is it not a question of trust in the judgment of General de Chastelain? Is it not a fact that one party refuses to accept the judgment of the independent arms decommissioning commissioner and that as long as it continues to do that, we shall never have the solution that we want and will always be in hock to the official Unionists?

Paul Murphy: I think that everybody in the House believes that the integrity of General de Chastelain is unquestioned, and that what he reported at the press conference and in his own report to me and to the Justice Minister in Ireland were significant improvements in what has occurred. Clearly, they were not sufficient to produce the trust and confidence that was required between the parties. I hope that that trust and confidence will be restored when we return after the elections.

John Taylor: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the review provided for in the Belfast agreement will take place on the due date, namely 2 December?

Paul Murphy: I cannot confirm the precise date, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the review will be held before the year is out. It has to start before then. It may well be on 2 December, but we do not know what is going to happen on 26 November in terms of the outcome of the elections. The hon. Gentleman and I will agree, however, that the review must start after the elections and before the year is finished.

Traffic Surveillance

Patrick Mercer: What plans he has to increase security surveillance of traffic through the Province's (a) ports and (b) airports.

Jane Kennedy: Security at ports and airports throughout Northern Ireland is kept under continual review involving a multi-agency approach. I cannot disclose specific details in relation to security changes, as to do so could compromise the effectiveness of measures put in place.

Patrick Mercer: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the lessening of tension and violence in Northern Ireland, but will the Minister assure me that, as terrorists continue to target ports and airports, surveillance will increasewhatever political signal that sendsand that the Government will not allow their guard to drop?

Jane Kennedy: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Government are serious about protecting our borders and doing all that we can to prevent terrorist attacks from whatever source.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Minister meet the representative body of the Northern Ireland airport police, so that it can explain to her the undertakings given in the House by Sir Patrick Mayhew and in a published letter to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) at the time of the privatisation of the international airport, bearing in mind that it is the intention of the privatised management to cut the number of police officers there by 15? Will the Minister ensure that those officers have their day in court with her, so that they can explain their deep concerns?

Jane Kennedy: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the determination with which he has pursued the case being made by the police officers to whom he refers. I can assure him that I would be happy to meet a delegation, if he wishes to bring that forward.

Roy Beggs: Is the Minister satisfied that security surveillance at ports and airports in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland is adequate to ensure that there is no back-door illegal entry from the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom? Has she any plans to formalise the arrangements in respect of the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic?

Jane Kennedy: I am satisfied that the enhancements that are being made at Belfast city airport are adequate and appropriate to the task. The hon. Gentleman's point about cross-border vigilance and co-operation is one that I will look at. I am satisfied that the co-operation that already exists between Customs, immigration officers and the police forces in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is excellent. That co-operation is continuing, and we keep it under constant review.

Decommissioning

John Robertson: What progress has been made by the Independent Monitoring Commission towards verifying decommissioning by paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.

Jane Kennedy: While the verification of the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons is a matter for the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, the Independent Monitoring Commission, currently existing in shadow form, will in due course monitor paramilitary activity, normalisation and allegations of political breach. It will do so with a view to maintaining the trust and confidence necessary for the conduct of stable and inclusive devolved government in Northern Ireland.

John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the setbacks in decommissioning, the work that has been done in Northern Ireland should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does she also agree that there is still more to be done?

Jane Kennedy: I am happy to agree with both my hon. Friend's points. Clearly, the outcome of last Tuesday's discussions was disappointing, in that the considerable progress that has been made on decommissioning was not enough to restore the full confidence and trust necessary to go forward in a positive atmosphere into an election to bring about the restoration of an Executive Government.

Douglas Hogg: Does the Minister accept that it would be helpful if we knew how much of the weapons and explosives had been destroyed and how much remained? Is that not essential to determine the parties' good faith? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is far too noisy in the Chamber.

Jane Kennedy: I largely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We have not yet achieved the confidence necessary to secure a political advance. For that, we need agreement on the transparency to be attached to acts of decommissioning in terms of the arms dealt with and how long it will take to complete the process.

Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that it is significant that there has been no major arms discovery in Northern Ireland during the period in which the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has been acting? Is there any relationship between the absence of such a discovery and the continuation of the commission? Is it not surprising that General de Chastelain seems to have been held captive until the announcement was made about the election? Was the ploy to get the elections without the proper sequence agreed by the parties?

Jane Kennedy: The House should reflect that last week's statements by the leader of Sinn Fein and by the IRA were major steps forward and confirmed their commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The act of decommissioning that was overseen by the IICD was also welcome. Unfortunately, as both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have now made clear, it did not achieve the level of public confidence that is necessary to go forward to an election with the confidence that an Executive would be achieved as a result of the election.

Prison Officers

Lady Hermon: How many attacks there have been on (a) serving and (b) former prison officers in Northern Ireland in each of the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: There have been 53 attacks on serving prison officers and five attacks on former officers in the past 12 months.
	Attacks on prison officers are attacks on men and women doing an important and difficult job on behalf of the whole community. Those prison officers deserve and require the wholehearted backing of the community and their representatives.

Lady Hermon: As so many attacks have been in my constituency, will the Minister come with me to explain to the families precisely how she intends to lift the morale of prison officers, who feel so terribly demoralised at present?

Jane Kennedy: I often meet the families and representatives of prison officers and am conscious of, and take seriously, the safety and security of prison officers and their homes. Putting the lives of women and children at risk to try to influence the way in which prison officers do their jobs should be condemned by all right-thinking people. I would be happy to meet prison officers and their families if the hon. Lady brought a delegation.

Organised Crime

Russell Brown: What recent assessment he has made of the level of co-operation between the British and Irish Governments in tackling organised crime in Northern Ireland.

Jane Kennedy: Co-operation with the Irish Government is excellent and we are working together to develop a cross-border threat assessment and a joint strategy to tackle organised crime.

Russell Brown: I commend my hon. Friend for all her efforts and her determination to tackle crime, with support from both sides of the border. A necessary adjunct to cross-border co-operation is the work of the Organised Crime Task Force, which is unique in the UK. Will she congratulate everyone from all organisations on both sides of the border who are working so hard in extremely difficult circumstances?

Jane Kennedy: I am happy to congratulate all the agencies involved in the work of the Organised Crime Task Force. It is a matter of great pride and pleasure for me to be associated with them. There is now an enhanced understanding of cross-border organised crime, on which to build effective joint action against the criminals who use the border to their advantage. Significant developments are taking place in the fight against organised crime, which I am happy to commend to the House.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Si�n Simon: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29th October.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I would like to speak on the subject of Iraq. I hope that the whole House would join me in condemning the brutal and wicked terrorist attacks on the hotel Al Rashid on Sunday, on the Red Cross and Iraqi police stations on Monday, and the further attacks that took place yesterday. Those attacks were the work of evil people who do not wish to see a stable and prosperous Iraq, and we shall continue to do everything that we can to thwart them and reconstruct the country.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Si�n Simon: Could the Prime Minister tell me how to explain to my constituents in Erdington that they can get better cancer treatment if they move to London?

Tony Blair: The issue of how to make sure that the drugs passed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines are rolled out across the whole country is one of the matters that we are looking into now. It is only as a result of those guidelines that we have been able to increase the number of people who have access to life-saving cancer drugs. As my hon. Friend will know, the three-year progress report on the NHS cancer plan showed that cancer deaths are down by something like 10 per cent. over the past few years. We have seen the largest fall in lung cancer in Europe among men, the largest decline in breast cancer among women, and there are 30 per cent. more cancer consultants. All that is the result of the extra investment going into our NHS.

Iain Duncan Smith: I join the Prime Minister in his condemnation of the attacks in Iraq and express our commiserations to the families of the people who have suffered directly as a result.
	According to the Home Office, which country has the biggest crime problem in the western world?

Tony Blair: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if he is talking about our crime rate, according to the British crime survey, crime rates are down 25 per cent. over the past few years. That contrasts very much with the doubling of crime under the Conservatives when they were in office.

Iain Duncan Smith: Figures released by the Home Office last Friday show that people are more likely to suffer crime in Britain than in any other country in Europe or north America. So will the Prime Minister tell us which country has the highest level of violent crime in Europe?

Tony Blair: Again, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, yesviolent crime has risen in this country in the past few years and it has been rising in Britain for 20 years. However, as a result of the street crime initiative, street robbery is now down and overall crime is down, not up, in this country.

Iain Duncan Smith: Again, the Home Office tells us that there are more violent crimes in Britain than in any other country in Europe. That includes Germany, which has a much larger population than Britain. The Prime Minister said here that he would be tough on crime, but gun crime is up, violent crime is up and overall crime is up. Is it not a reality that, under Labour, Britain is now the crime capital of the western world?

Tony Blair: No, that is not correct. As I said, under the Conservatives, crime doubled; car crime doubled; burglary more than doubled; violent crime went up 73 per cent. It is true that we still have a lot more progress to make, even though crime is, according to the British crime survey, down 25 per cent. That is no consolation to victims of crime. However, a crime Bill is going through Parliament nowthe Criminal Justice Bill, which will give us tougher sentences for murder, longer sentences for dangerous sex offenders, longer sentences for violent offences, five-year minimum sentences for gun offences, and which will change the criminal justice system so that those people who are guilty are convicted in the courts. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, having told us that he cares about violent crime, he is opposing those measures in this Parliament?

John Hume: Would the Prime Minister agree that, for the first time in history, the people of Ireland as a whole, both north and south, have declared how they wish to live together by endorsing overwhelmingly, in referendums, the Good Friday agreement? Does he agree, therefore, that it is the duty of all true democrats to implement the will of the people, by implementing all aspects of the Good Friday agreement? Will he confirm that his Government are totally committed to implementing the agreement in full, and that they will not depart from it in any way?

Tony Blair: We are indeed committed to implementing the agreement in full. The part that my hon. Friend played in bring the agreement about is a real tribute to him, and to his dedication to people in Northern Ireland. I want to make it absolutely clear that it is vitally important that we continue with implementing the agreement in all its aspects, as it is that agreementand that agreement alonethat offers the best chance of a prosperous, good, stable and secure future for people in Northern Ireland. There is no other agreement on offer apart from the one that we negotiated with painstaking difficulty, as my hon. Friend knows, over a number of days. I hope very much that, as a result of what happens over the next few weeks, we are able to take that agreement forward and implement it in full. This summer has been the most peaceful in 30 years, and it is important that we carry on working to bring about a peace that is lasting and durable.

Charles Kennedy: Under this Government, council tax has risen by 70 per cent. since 1997. How can the Prime Minister justify the unfairness of that, especially in respect of pensioners?

Tony Blair: I understand the difficulties that pensioners and others will have with council tax rises, but the job of central Government is to fund local government adequately. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under the previous Government, in the last three years before we took office, there was a real-terms cut of about 7 per cent. in the amount of money that central Government gave to local Government. We have now raised that amount by about 25 per cent. in real terms. In the end, council taxes are set by local authorities, but the Government's job is to make sure that we give a proper amount of support to local government, and we are doing that.

Charles Kennedy: Given that so many people, not least pensioners, are being clobbered by the high percentage increases, and that the level of support from central Government is not there when and where it is needed, would not it be far better to scrap the unfair system that is the council tax and replace it with a tax related to people's ability to pay?

Tony Blair: There is no doubt that there is a proper debate to be had about the future of local government finance, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Liberal Democrat proposal to substitute a local income tax for the council tax would mean that people's income taxes went up by something like 6p in the pound. That is a huge burden. As I have said on many occasions, the right hon. Gentleman simply cannot afford all his pledges on behalf of the Liberal Democrats out of raising the top rate of tax, or by means of a local income tax or anything else.
	I do not know whether the House wants any more details, but I said last week that the Liberal Democrats had 70 commitments. The cost of those commitments would run to literally billions of pounds. It would take too long to go into detail, as we would run over the time available for Prime Minister's questions[Hon. Members: Aw!] They include things like 400 million for village halls. We all support village halls, but 400 million? Other commitments are 750 million for small businesses, and an extra 2 billion for road traffic accidents. A further 25 commitments were made at the Liberal Democrat party conference. My favourite was commitment 65, which stated:
	Funded training for teachers and specialists on sex education, providing them information and material to aid honest, non-judgmental and thought-provoking lessons.
	Let me suggest that commitment 71 should be funded training for Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesmen to aid honest, non-judgmental and thought-provoking lessons on financial discipline.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dennis Skinner: In view of the renewed interest in crime figures, especially on the Tory Benches, will my right hon. Friend consider whether back-stabbing should become a criminal offence?

Tony Blair: I admit that in the past few years the incidence of that has increased, but I regret to say that on the evidence available there is not much that we shall be able to do about it.

Simon Hughes: On a day when there is some interest in votes of confidence, will the Prime Minister make Government policy clear on a matter that may turn out to be far more important to Britain's prosperity than matters being dealt with in Committee Room 14? Will the Government deny this week's reports that Crossrail faces a Government axe; and will the Prime Minister give his personal vote of confidence to Crossrail so that the private sector can invest knowing that it will go ahead?

Tony Blair: No. We remain convinced that Crossrail is an important project for London, that it is well worth supporting and that it could have real benefits for Londoners and, indeed, the whole country, but it is important that we as a Government sit down and work out how it can be funded. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the amount runs into many billions of pounds. Nevertheless, we are confident that if we sit down and look at the project in the right way, we can make progress with it.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Derian House, a children's hospice whose tenth birthday took place on Monday? I hope that he will send his good wishes. Will he also use his good offices to ensure that there is better funding for hospices throughout the country, direct from the national health service?

Tony Blair: I am happy to send my congratulations to the hospice in my hon. Friend's constituency. Obviously we give a certain amount of funding to hospices, but we are well aware that they wish that to be more, and we think constantly about how we can support them through the NHS and in other ways. I will certainly take my hon. Friend's comments into account.

Iain Duncan Smith: If there are further steps towards European integration[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to shout.

Iain Duncan Smith: If there are further steps towards European integration, the people should have their say at a general election or in a referendum. That is what the Prime Minister said in 1996. When did he change his mind?

Tony Blair: I have not. If there is a single currency recommendation from the Government, people will have a referendum. I do not believe, however, that the constitution now being discussed in Europe merits a referendum.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister must be the only person in Europe who thinks that the European constitution has no constitutional implications for Britain. Does he agree with the French Prime Minister, who said recently that any true European would want a referendum?

Tony Blair: No, I do not. I do not believe it is necessary to have a referendum unless there is a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between the member state and the European Union. I remember that three years ago we were told that the Nice treaty merited a referendum, because it would destroy parliamentary government in this country. We have had the Nice treaty in force for several years, and it has not done so. I do not believe that this treaty, which does not alter the fundamental nature of the relationship between the member state and the European Union, merits a referendum.

Iain Duncan Smith: Let me remind the Prime Ministerbecause he has a very short memoryof what the constitution actually provides for. It provides for an elected president, a European foreign minister, control over asylum policy, a charter of fundamental rights, and a European armyall of which the Prime Minister says is only a tidying-up exercise. That is why the German Foreign Minister has said:
	This is the most important treaty since the formation of the Common Market.
	Why is the Prime Minister the only leader in Europe who will not tell the truth to his own country?

Tony Blair: Actually, the majority of countries in Europe are not having a referendum on the treaty. I do not suggest in any way that it is not important, but it does not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship.
	We know what game the Conservatives are up to. Just a few days agonot a few years ago; a few days agothe shadow Attorney-General published his pamphlet about Conservative policy on Europe. He says that he wants Britain to retire to a trade association agreement with the rest of the European Unionthat being what he calls sphere 1 European countries, which are not full members of the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman nods. That means withdrawal from the European Union.
	In so far as one can work out what the policy of the Conservative Front Bench is, that is now the policy of the Conservative Front Bench. People can forget the business about a referendum. This is not about a referendum, for the Conservative party; it is about the Conservatives' desire to take Britain out of Europe, which would be a disaster for this country.

Stuart Bell: The Prime Minister has seen that crime is the issue of the day and has referred to the Lords and the Criminal Justice Bill. Can he explain to the House why the Conservatives, who have always been tough on crime, are now in alliance with the Liberals to shred the Bill, to the detriment

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Prime Minister.

Martin Smyth: Last Tuesday in Hillsborough, the Prime Minister felt frustrated because he and the Taoiseach were privy to details about decommissioning. The right hon. Gentleman qualified that a little on Wednesday at Question Time when he said that they had certain information, but not the full information. However, he assured us all that if people knew what he knew they would be satisfied.
	Can the Prime Minister tell us today whether he is satisfied, when we know that there is fresh procurement of weapons? Has the IRA given dates for further decommissioning? Has it given a final date, or are we still getting IRA flannel?

Tony Blair: No, we still have to make sure that decommissioning is completed in full and that it happens within a reasonable and proper timetable; for example, the Government have set out a two-year process for normalisation in Northern Ireland. However, just as it would be wrong to say that we have everything that we needbecause we do notit would be equally wrong to say that we are still in the same position as several years ago. We are not. The truth is that Northern Ireland has moved forward considerably, because people, not least Unionists, have had the courage to take difficult decisions to negotiate with people they used to regard as enemies so as to try to bring about a better future for people in Northern Ireland.
	The best thing for people such as the hon. Gentleman to do, if they really have the interests of the people of Northern Ireland at heart, is to try to help those who are working to make sure that the agreement we reached five and a half years ago is implemented in full.

David Clelland: Would the Prime Minister accept that appointments commissions have a tendency to appoint people like themselvesas witness the appointment of the noble Baroness Howe, who became once, twice, three times a Lady? Would he further agree that a more representative and democratic second Chamber could be produced, without direct elections, by widening the responsibility for appointments to include the devolved Assemblies, local government and major voluntary and professional organisations?

Tony Blair: As my hon. Friend's question indicates, there is a range of views. I have made clear my own position, but I do not doubt that the debate will continue over the coming months. In the end, there will be a free vote for the House to determine the outcome.

Michael Fallon: Could the Prime Minister take this opportunity to clear up any embarrassment that may inadvertently have been caused to General de Chastelain, and confirm to the House that the general did not intimate to him the extent of any decommissioning that had taken place?

Tony Blair: I stand entirely by what I said last week at the Dispatch Box. General de Chastelain has done an excellent job in extremely difficult circumstances; but as both I and the Irish Prime Minister have said, certain information was given to us by General de Chastelain and I had very much hoped that it would have been possible to provide the full information to everybody.

Shona McIsaac: While I welcome what my right hon. Friend said earlier about the reduction in deaths from cancer in this country, does he share my concern that not all women with breast cancer are receiving the drugs to which they are entitled, according to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? Can he tell me what he intends to do to get rid of those disparities?

Tony Blair: We are looking at what we can do to reduce those disparities. This is a good example of where there has been significant progress but there are still things to do. Since April 2001, an additional 200,000 women have been invited for screening for breast cancer, as a result of the expansion of the breast-screening service to 65 to 70-year-olds. As I said a moment or two ago, there has been an increase of about 30 per cent. in the number of consultants. The staff at the Royal Marsden to whom I spoke yesterday were in no doubt that there had been a significant improvement in cancer care over the past few years; but under our new guidelines, we have to make sure that there is no postcode lottery and that care is given in the same way to people throughout the country. That is what we are trying to do. A tremendous amount of progress has been made, but there is still more to do.

Lembit �pik: Last week I asked the Prime Minister to meet the parents of Private Cheryl James, who died at Deepcut barracks, and he suggested that the Defence Ministers meet them first; I felt that was reasonable. However, is he aware that the legal and political advisers of the parents are to be excluded from that meeting? What could the Defence Minister possibly want to say to the parents that he dare not share with those advisers, who will find out the information anyway? I would ask the Prime Minister to honour the wish of the parents and allow those advisers to attend the meeting with the Defence Minister.

Tony Blair: There are reasons and worries, which was why that information was given to the hon. Gentleman, but I do understand the point that he is making. If he leaves the matter with me, I will speak to the Minister of State about it. I understand his desire to attend the meeting so I will see what I can do about it, but the difficulty has been caused, apparently, by the fact that there are legal issues arising out of whatever may be said at any meeting. So if he will leave it with me, I will do my best for him.

James Plaskitt: Two elderly constituents of mine recently gave up a rented home that they loved and had lived in for many years, solely because of the antisocial behaviour of their neighbours. Does my right hon. Friend agree that social landlords need to be given stronger powers to tackle antisocial tenants, and that having been given those powers, they should use them?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is one very important part of the measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which is why I hope that it gets the full support of the House. There are issues to do with antisocial behaviour orders, with social landlords and with the licensing of landlords, and the Bill contains really comprehensive measures to deal with those. The legislation will not come into effect until January or February next year, but I think it will make a real difference.

Adrian Sanders: South West Water customers pay the highest water and sewerage charges in the country, but national benefit and pension rates do not recognise that. Is that fair?

Tony Blair: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the independent water regulator has started a review of water prices for 2005 to 2010 and obviously it will need to balance carefully consumer protection and security of supply against price. I am sure that the regulator will listen to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but he will have in the end, of course, to set a charge for the whole of the country.

Paddy Tipping: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to reflect on his visit to Nottinghamshire last week, when he met both the police and victims of crime? Police numbers in Nottinghamshire are at record levels but performance is relatively weak. The solution of the Police Authority is a massive injection of extra funds. But does the Prime Minister agree with me that sustained funding can come about only if best practice is adopted, if there is a commitment to value for money and if there is a reforma revisionof existing policies?

Tony Blair: I think my hon. Friend is right. It is worth paying tribute, as I know he would, to the efforts that Nottinghamshire police have made recently, because their latest figures show robbery down 9 per cent. and overall crime down almost 3 per cent., compared with the previous quarter. The funding levels have gone up. I know there are still issues to do with funding in respect of Nottinghamshire and I heard those concerns when I was there last week, but I also think my hon. Friend is right in saying that there is best practice, and if we can get some of that best practice moved across all authorities, including Nottinghamshire, it is the combination of the extra investment, the extra officers and the reform that will do the trick.
	When I was talking to the Nottinghamshire gun crime unit, in Nottingham, its members also laid stress on the need for changes to the law. That is why I come back to the point that this Criminal Justice Bill will be very important indeed in giving the police the powers that they want, and it really should be supported.

Elfyn Llwyd: In June, a constituent of mine, Lance-Corporal Tom Keys, was unfortunately one of the six military policemen killed in Al Majar Al Kabir. Since that time, strenuous efforts have been made by his parents and by me to receive some basic answers to some basic questions, and the only consistent answer from the Ministry of Defence is that we may never know what happened. With great respect, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence last week, asking for an urgent meeting, so that the parents can be persuaded, or at least convinced, that something serious is going on in terms of the inquiry. Will the Prime Minister please intervene personally to ensure that that meeting does take place urgently?

Tony Blair: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. Once again, I offer them my condolences for the loss that they have suffered. The Ministry of Defence and the Army out there are trying to do everything they can to find out exactly what happened. If they say that they may never know exactly what happened, that may simply be the truth, and people may have to know that because of what happened. I know that they are making every attempt to lay the minds of the families to rest. I am sure that he will get further information from the Secretary of State when he sees him.

Anthony D Wright: Many companies in Great Yarmouth often mention the problems that they have with skills shortages and trying to recruit skilled craftsmen for their industries. They also recognise that there has been a substantial investment in universities and in encouraging students to go there. However, many students do not have the desire or indeed the academic ability to go on to university education but would like to go into skills training. What is my right hon. Friend doing to try to redress the skills shortage and to encourage those students whom I represent who want to go into apprenticeships but are being denied access to a trade?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend raises a valuable point. We are spending almost 1 billion a year on work-based training for young people. That is important because, as he rightly says, some young people will want to go into an apprenticeship rather than university. We now have more than 230,000 young people undertaking modern apprenticeships in England. That is the highest number ever and of those, 67,000 are in manufacturing and engineering. It is important to realise that we have the possibility of providing high-quality education and skills for all our young people through a combination of widening access to universities and getting more people into modern apprenticeships.

Henry Bellingham: Can the Prime Minister confirm that a No. 10 spokesman recently proposed that local councils should be forced to hold a referendum before increasing council tax by more than double the rate of inflation? Does he recall that two weeks ago he agreed that the Treasury Red Book forecast a 7.4 per cent. increase in council tax for next year? So, why does he go round the country raising people's hopes when he knows that he cannot deliver?

Tony Blair: I have not come across those comments by a No. 10 spokesman. On council tax, as I said in answer to an earlier question, central Government are providing large real-terms increases to local government. What cannot possibly help the council tax payer is the policy of the Conservatives, which is massive cuts in public spending. Those cuts would necessarily impact[Hon. Members: No.] It is what their leader said. [Interruption.] I am just quoting what their leader said, which is that there would be a 20 per cent. cut across the board. How will that help council tax payers?

John Grogan: While I accept the fact that my right hon. Friend has no reverse gear, might it not be possibleif only for a momentto find a neutral gear on the subject of student top-up fees and to re-examine alternative systems of student finance that would allow students from hard-working families, perhaps just above the threshold of any bursary scheme, to make their university choices on the basis of which course best suits them rather than on cost?

Tony Blair: The trouble is that if we stay in neutral, universities desperately need more money and we need to widen access to universitiesI know that my hon. Friend wants more and more people to go to university and the only way we can achieve that is to get more funding to the universities. The Government are going to put in more, but we think it fair to get rid of the up-front feesto say that no one pays those, but that instead they will pay something on graduation. For example, that would mean a graduate earning 18,000 paying back about 5 a week in fees. I do not think that unfair. What is more, we are getting rid of feesat the moment the bottom 40 per cent. of the population do not pay fees. We are looking into how we give help to lower-income families. The one thing that we cannot do is to end up with the status quo being maintained and cutting the number of students at university, as the Conservatives want.

Michael Mates: When the Prime Minister took the decision in the spring to postpone the elections in Northern Ireland, many people thought that that was a right and brave thing to do. He has now called an election when the stumbling block of arms decommissioning, which meant that the setting up of an Executive was unlikely, is still there. Has he not now got the worst of both worlds?

Tony Blair: I do not believe so because it would be impossible, frankly, to postpone elections in Northern Ireland indefinitely. It is important that people renew their democratic mandate, but we have made a lot of progress since March. We were not able to make all the progress that we wished for, but we now have a clear undertaking from the IRA to the cessation of all paramilitary activity.
	We have actually now got an independent Monitoring Commission that is able to look at any paramilitary activity that is undertaken and, if it is undertaken, declare it as a breach of the promises that have been given, whether by the IRA or by any other group. We have also got a situation where, frankly, we have the best chance of a proper working relationship that we have had for years between the various people in Northern Ireland.
	Now there is always a judgment to be made about this, but in the five and a half years since the Belfast agreementthe Good Friday agreementthe truth is that we have come an enormous way in Northern Ireland, and the most sensible thing is for people to recognise that such processes are always difficult, that the movement is always incremental and that it is often absolutely painstaking, but it is worth it because if we look at Northern Ireland today, in terms of the living standards and the quality of life for most people there, it is frankly unrecognisable from 10 years ago.

School Funding

Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the funding of schools in the years 200405 and 200506. I am placing the details in the Library. On 17 July this year, I set out to the House the principles that I would follow to restore confidence in the school funding system, deliver stability in school budgets and give certainty for head teachers and governors. I promised a further update in the autumn.
	Responsibility for school funding is shared between the Government, local education authorities and the governing bodies and head teachers. We all want to ensure that schools can plan and manage their resources effectively to achieve the highest possible standards. I want today to express my appreciation of the commitment of all the education partners to those ambitions and for the very constructive way in which representatives of schools and local government have worked with us. I am confident that that will continue.
	As I said in July, I intend to support schools in three ways: a minimum increase in every school's budget; additional resources to help every LEA to support schools with additional pressures; and targeted transitional support to help all schools to achieve balanced budgets. I promised to introduce for 200405 and 200506 a minimum per pupil funding guarantee for every school, taking account of the average cost pressures facing schools in those years. I intend to achieve that by increasing both LEA core funding and the funding received from Department for Education and Skills grants.
	My officials have examined the relevant cost pressures, including increases in teachers' pay, where we have assumed an inflation-led settlement. Those pressures naturally vary between schools. However, following extensive consultation with our education partners, my best estimate for next year is that the combined effect of those factors on the average school will be about 3.4 per cent.
	Each school receives funding through LEAs in two main ways: funding directly related to pupil numbers and funding related to fixed costs. We have concludedagain, after careful consideration with our education partnersthat pupil-led elements should rise by 4 per cent. per pupil and fixed elements also by 4 per cent. in cash, so a school whose pupil numbers stay the same between 200304 and 200405 will be guaranteed a 4 per cent. per pupil increase in its overall budget next year.
	A school whose pupil numbers decline will receive a funding increase of more than 4 per cent. per pupil to help cover fixed costs. However, because of declining pupil numbers, the number of primary schools with reduced cash budgetsand, therefore, possibly staff numberswill be significant, as there are around 50,000 fewer primary pupils this year, with a similar reduction next year. Secondary schools with falling rolls will be in the same position.
	Schools whose pupil numbers are increasing will be guaranteed at least a 4 per cent. increase for all their existing pupils. Those schools will be guaranteed a rise of at least 4 per cent. in their cash budgets and an overall per pupil increase of at least 3.4 per cent.
	I said in July that we would consider carefully the position of very small schools. Those will receive an increase of at least 4 per cent. if their pupil numbers do not change. However, our general approach may not be appropriate for very small schools with much higher than average fixed costs. Therefore, funding for schools with 75 pupils or fewer will be determined according to their LEA's own school funding formula. For special schools, whose funding is normally based on places rather than pupil numbers, the guarantee will be a minimum 4 per cent. increase in funding per place. LEA funding for specified costs, such as rates, will continue to be funded at cost and will be apart from the guarantee.
	The 4 per cent. level at which I have set the minimum schools guarantee already takes some account of cost variation around the 3.4 per cent. average. I stress, however, that that guarantee represents only the minimum increase that a school might receive next year. Across the country, many schools will receive per pupil increases of more than 4 per cent., since the overall increase in education formula spending will be more than 5.5 per cent. per pupil. The final budgets will be determined by LEAs, in conjunction with school forums, after the local government finance settlement has been announced, but today's announcement shouldsubject to pupil numbersgive schools an early indication of the minimum increase in their budgets. For 200506the year aftermy expectation is that the minimum schools guarantee will again be at least 4 per cent. for a school with unchanged pupil numbers. I will keep that under review and will announce the final figure in due course.
	Other elements of schools funding will also be increased on the same basis. Thus the Learning and Skills Council will increase all its funding rates for school sixth forms by 4 per cent. in 200405, and it will also increase current school sixth forms' allocations for the period April to July 2004 by 4 per cent. Similar arrangements will apply in 200506.
	The changes to the standards fund caused significant problems for some schools this year, so in July I undertook to reverse the cuts that had previously been announced for the next two years. That additional spending is reflected in the standards fund allocations that are being issued to local authorities today. In 200405 schools will generally receive a cash increase of 4 per cent. on this year's standards fund allocations. There will be some limited exceptions: those include grants where the amount of funding is directly related to actual costs; specialist schools, where I increased the funding rate in September this year and will make a further increase to 129 per pupil in 2005; and grants, where funding is being especially targeted for policy reasons. For example, we are uprating the ethnic minority achievement grant by 4 per cent., but are also taking the first steps towards a fairer distribution under which no school will receive less EMAG in cash terms in 200405 than they are receiving this year.
	Moreover, next year, schools will receive either a 4 per cent. increase in their per pupil school standards grant, or the value of their announced SSG band for 200405, whichever is higher. Both standards fund and school standards grant will be uprated againin line with the minimum schools guaranteein 200506. I am also adding resources to revenue support grant to reflect in LEA baselines the budget support grants paid to some authorities in 200304.
	The total additional funding to maintain and uprate the standards fund and school standards grant, and to mainstream the budget support grants, will be 435 million in 200405 and 520 million in 200506. I am placing full details in the Library.
	I can also confirm that threshold pay costs will be fully funded next year. As at present, schools will be able to draw down well over 500 million from my Department on a demand-led basis. In addition, the 205 million that we have allocated this year for performance-related pay will be uprated at least in line with the headline pay settlement for next year. If proper arrangements for point 3 of the upper pay scale can be settled, further resources will be allocated in September 2004.
	The schools guarantee must of course be backed by adequate resources for local education authorities. Next year I will therefore set the minimum increase in the schools formula spending share at 5 per cent. per pupil by contrast with the 4 per cent. guarantee for schools. Again, that is a minimummost increases will be higher. The provisional SFSS increase for each authority will be confirmed at the time of the local government finance settlement, but we expect the ceiling increase to be at least 6.5 per cent. per pupil.
	As I said in July, every authority will receive sufficient grant in each of the next two years to cover its formula increase in education spending. Given that commitment, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will be writing to authorities to set out the Government's clear expectation that every LEA passports in full its SFSS increase to a matching increase in its schools budget, unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances. I have statutory powers to require LEAs to set a minimum schools budget and I will be ready to use those powers if necessary.
	I also expect local education authorities' spending on their central education budgets to rise no faster than spending on schools. I am confident that most LEAs will concentrate on increasing schools' delegated budgets over the next two years, but the draft regulations that I have issued reflect my determination to achieve this. Under my proposals, LEAs will be able to seek an exemption in exceptional local circumstances, but the generality is clear. I will confirm the minimum increase in SFSS for 200506 next autumn, but if the minimum schools guarantee were 4 per cent., I would expect the minimum increase in SFSS to be around 5 per cent. again.
	My proposals have been drawn up to support schools, but that support will not be at the expense of other services. In line with the commitment that I made in July, the Government will provide additional resources for other services, including children's social services, to support spending in those services. The full details will be announced as part of next month's local government finance settlement.
	My statement in July emphasised my commitment to sustaining school work force reforms. That commitment stands, and I see it as important. Much progress can be made by schools managing their total resourcespeople and moneymore strategically and working in different ways. Over the next two years, the increase in resources for schools, through schools formula spending share and Department for Education and Skills grants, and including the additional resources that I am confirming today, will provide headroom over the average cost pressures that schools face to help schools to make the most of the national agreement.
	Primary responsibility for maintaining sound financial management rests with schools themselves and their LEAs. I acknowledge that LEAs need more flexibility to help schools to balance budgets over the next two years, so I am amending the regulations to enable LEAs to target their resources at schools with particular problems, whatever their source. It is the responsibility of LEAs to use that flexibility. I expect them to do so, and am confident that my expectation will be fully shared by the communities that they serve.
	However, I do recognise that there are a limited number of cases where balancing budgets is beyond the capacity of individual schools and LEAs in the short term. That is most likely in the LEAs that have received the lowest increases in education formula spending and DFES grant between 200203 and 200405. For those LEAs, I therefore propose to make a targeted transitional grant available over the next two years, and I am issuing indicative figures today. These assume that grant will be available to take the increase in funding for all authorities over the two-year period from 200203 to 200405 up to a minimum of 12 per cent. per pupilwell ahead of our best estimate of unavoidable pressures for those years. I estimate that that will cost around 120 million and benefit around a third of LEAs. The final allocations will be confirmed at the time of the local government finance settlement.
	However, that additional resource will be provided only when I am convinced that the LEA has made every effort to support its schools from within its own resources by passporting its SFSS increase in full, directing its resources to delegated schools budgets as far as possible and intending to target schools in greatest difficulty. It will be a condition of grant that each LEA prepares, with the schools concerned, a costed and credible plan to bring its schools' budgets into balance by 200607. In 200506, I propose to make further grant available to the same authorities at around half the level of that provided in 200405. Again, I will confirm detailed figures next autumn.
	LEAs with increases between 200203 and 200405 greater than 12 per cent. per pupil should be able to resolve local difficulties within their own resources. However, I recognise that there are individual schools that spent above their income this year and may therefore face difficulties in getting their budgets back into balance. So where an LEA can put forward a compelling argument that additional transitional funds are needed in the short term, above and beyond those already available to the LEA, to avoid real damage to children's education, I am prepared to consider bringing forward DFES grant payments. So the LEA will have funds available in 200405 for that purpose, with the expectation of a consequential reduction to what they receive in future years. I will confirm the maximum amount that I might be prepared to make available to each LEA in that way following the local government finance settlement, but I expect the calculation to be based on a maximum grant of 300,000 per authority, or 0.2 per cent. of the authority's total education resources in 200405 if that is higher. Such grant would be subject to conditions similar to those for the targeted transitional grant.
	I am confident that the measures I have outlined today will help to create stability for schools. We will do all we can to help LEAs work with their schools where necessary to get budgets back into balance over the next two years. That is because, for any school, an annual excess of spending over income is not sustainable. I acknowledge that getting back into balance may mean difficult decisions. Where school spending varies significantly from the averagewhere 80 per cent. is spent on staff costs and 20 per cent. on non-staff costsor from their income, they need to act to get back into balance.
	It is therefore vital that schools are well able to plan and manage their resources effectively. More and better support for schools is needed in achieving that, so I am announcing that my Department has commissioned KPMG to work with the National College for School Leadership and the head teacher associations to design and develop a varied menu of support and guidance to help schools' budget management. That support will be available from the turn of the year and it will prioritise schools in those LEAs that are in receipt of the targeted transitional grant.
	The proposals I have announced today are designed to help restore confidence in the school funding system and increase stability in school budgets. I am very grateful for the help and advice we have received from our education partners. I have set out the framework for the school funding system over the next two years. It is now for LEAs to address the needs of every school and for heads and governors to ensure that the resources they receive are used effectively. We all share responsibility for school funding and we must continue to work together to get it right. I commend the statement to the House.

Damian Green: As always, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his exquisite sense of timing in making it today. When he looks back at his 12 months in the job, I am sure he will agree that coming to the House to try to rectify the school funding crisis caused by his Government should not be a necessary duty for him. Let me explain what his non-transparent statement meant.
	The Secretary of State's predecessor presented the Government's plans for education spending as a triumph, but instead of that, heads, teachers and parents across the country have spent months trying to cope with the effect of huge deficits, teacher redundancies and crumbling school buildings. Many schools have been forced to dip into their financial reserves or capital budgets to ensure that they make ends meet. Schools across the country have deficit budgets and LEAs are suffering huge shortfalls. Hertfordshire estimates a 15 million shortfall, Surrey has spent 12 million of its reserves and my authority of Kent has an estimated 22 million shortfall. I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman that in Norfolk the shortfall is 14 million.
	The effects of the crisis have been most acute in the classrooms. Only two weeks ago, a report commissioned by the National Union of Teachers found that a quarter of primary schools and a third of secondary schools cut staff this year because of financial shortages. Furthermore, the funding problems make a mockery of the Government's claim that class sizes have got smaller. In practice, classes are having to double up to save money that is usually spent on supply teachers. Planning, preparation and marking time are being reduced as a result.
	So today we have the Secretary of State's rescue package. He has made much of the extra money going to the worst-hit local authorities. That will be welcome, as will the fact that some of the relevant information for schools and local authorities is coming out earlier than in previous years. But as ever we need to dig beneath the surface of the statement to find the new victims of the Government's failures in this area.
	Some of the money that the Secretary of State is giving away is reported to come from the budget for teachers who have earned it through the performance-related pay system. Can he confirm that? He skated round it in his statement. What is the point of performance-related pay if teachers perform but do not then get the pay? Can he explain to teachers and the House how that is fair? Since he is penalising precisely those teachers who have worked hardest, can he imagine how much damage he is doing to morale in staff rooms today?
	On the general issue of teachers' pay, the right hon. Gentleman announced an annual rise of about 2.5 per cent., and he told the House today that that means an increase of about 3.4 per cent. for school budgets. Is he aware that that calculation is regarded with great suspicion by many people in our education system? They feel that schools will face cost pressures much higher than 3.4 per cent. In particular, can the right hon. Gentleman give schools a guarantee that they will face no more increases in employers' national insurance contributions? What effect does he think that that will have on the teachers' work load agreement, by which he rightly sets much store?
	The Secretary of State has today announced a per pupil increase of 4 per cent., but the House needs to unpick that figure and what lies behind it. I assume that it is an increase for every pupil in every school, regardless of that school's financial position. If so, is he not in danger of failing to compensate the worst-hit schools enough because he is spending the same amount in every school? He will be aware that the effects of the previous blunders have not been felt in a uniform way across the country, and indeed his 120 million fund is designed to address that. Can he give the House a guarantee that the extra grants and loans that he has announced will mean that every school will be able to return to the staffing levels that it had before this year's crisis? If he cannot, this announcement is just another piece of spin.
	On the wider implications, can the Secretary of State be more explicit about how far he wants to go in removing LEAs' ability to use local discretion on funding? I suspect that he deeply regrets his Government's abolition of grant-maintained status for schools, but if he is planning to bring it back for all schools by the back door, perhaps he could share that momentous change with the House.
	More particularly, if the right hon. Gentleman is removing some financial discretion from LEAs, can he tell us what will be the impact on special educational needs provision? He spoke briefly about that, but it was not at all clear what the ultimate effect would be. Earlier this year he accused some local authorities of spending too much on SEN provisionone of the most extraordinary statements that I have ever heard from an Education Secretary. Has he now decided that he wants to be in direct control of all SEN funding as well?
	The statement promises a minimum funding increase, but of course one of the key things that will matter to local authorities is where all the extra money is coming from. How much will come through the SFSS? The Government announced earlier that they were cutting central Government funding through the standards fund to give more freedom to local authorities; they are now reversing that process. But at the same time, they are trying to claim that the extra money that will, after today, come through central Government is new money. It is not; it is reshuffled money, so some of the real money will have to come, as ever under this Government, from the council tax payer.
	Can the Secretary of State tell the House the full implications of today's announcement for council tax levels and other services? If councils are told, as they have been, that they have to spend as much on education as the Government demand and that they will be capped if they put up their council tax too much, they will have to slash other services.
	The Government have spent months trying to dig themselves out of the hole that they created last year. This statement shows that the means that they are using are unfair to hard-working and successful teachers and threatening to council tax payers, and they do not even guarantee that the worst-hit schools will be enabled to recover quickly. The effects of that will be felt early next year when schools come to set their budgets. That is when today's statement will really be judged. Schools know from this year's experience that a generous-sounding Government statement can turn into a reality of cuts and redundancies. I hope that we do not see a repeat of this year's funding crisis in schools, but I fear that we will.

Charles Clarke: I was interested to note that the word children never found its way into that response.
	The hon. Gentleman refers to my exquisite sense of timing. I was grateful that the Conservative party decided to have its leadership election today, but I assume that it is only to hide the good news in my statement.
	I counsel the hon. Gentleman to be careful in quoting Conservative-controlled authorities such as Hertfordshire, Surrey, Kent and Essex, which are scaremongering in their schools with totally false figures. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the Conservative leader of Kent and other Conservative council leaders: Look at this statement, analyse it and understand what it means for every LEA and school, and then make a judgment. Don't try to scaremonger without having the facts in front of you.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman was speaking from an NUT brief, but it is not true that performance-related pay has been raided for this money. We gave our evidence to the pay review body, and we will see what it has to say. It is not true that the 3.4 per cent. figure is regarded with suspicion by other people in the education world. In fact, it was derived specifically from a series of discussions with, among others, local government and the head teacher associations precisely because I desired some consensus on what would be an appropriate figure.
	It is not the case that more increases in national insurance are in the pipeline. It is not the case that we are failing to compensate schools in the worst position; in fact, we are giving local authorities the flexibility to do that. None the less, I was interested that the hon. Gentleman appeared to be sayingno doubt he will correct me if I have got this wrongthat he is against a per pupil guarantee for every pupil in every school. The implication of what he said is not to have such a guarantee.
	It is the case that pupil numbers will be the principal determinant in school funding, so where rolls are falling, there will be consequences. I have made that clear, and it is the case throughout the system. It is not the case that we are removing LEA flexibility; in fact I am publishing regulations that will increase their flexibility to deal with the greatest issues.
	I acknowledge that important issues arise from special educational needs, and we have discussed those with local government. It is not the case that we are increasing the standards fund with money taken from the SFSS. The reverse is true: we have gone right through our budgets to increase that fund and the SFSS is left untouched by that approach.
	Finally, it is not the case that council tax will have to go up to achieve these increases. My statement and the statement that will be made by the Deputy Prime Minister in due course do not require council tax increases in order to maintain essential services.
	It is important that even the Opposition, in their current parlous state, have a discussion about these proposals on a factual, honest basis, rather than reading out a litany of allegations that are either wrong or simply taken from the NUT's brief.

Patrick Hall: Is my right hon. Friend confident that there will be sufficient additional support for those schools that have agreed deficit budgets this year and may not have the capacity to recover in the next financial year? Is he also confident that as a result of his statement the many schools that have avoided a deficit budget this year by dipping into their reserves and making cuts in training and maintenance, for example, will be able not only to recover in the next financial year but to resume the considerable progress that has been made since 1997?

Charles Clarke: I am confident that the arrangements that I have made today on the transitional fund and other issues will permit LEAs working with schools in the position described by my hon. Friend to deal with that situation and restore their budgets to the proper basis. The combination of grant for some authorities and loans for others means that I can assure my hon. Friend that we can sort out those problems.

John Pugh: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his lucid and informative statement. It did not altogether help but much of it is very welcome.
	Liberal Democrat Members feel that although this is, superficially, good news, we have been here before. Last year, the Government genuinely put money on the tablemore money than ever beforebut the Secretary of State has acknowledged that there were severe problems arising from increased school costs and the distributive effect of the new local authority formula and its effects on the school formula in turn. That was described as a failure of modelling. There was a marked difference between the Government's intentions, which were good, and the real-world effects, which were bad. This year, it is very much a case of dj vu for Liberal Democrats. The Government's intentions are good, but it remains to be seen whether the long-term effects are good. We will know only when the details are available and the budgets start to be constructed in 2004. The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the announcement may be another road to the financial chaos that we had last year. I seek reassurances, clarificationby gosh, we need clarificationand evidence that the modelling skills of the Department for Education and Skills are slightly better than they were last year.
	I have a highly specific question about how much new moneynot top-sliced or recycledhas been announced today. How much money from the vaults of the Treasury that was not there in April will be available to give LEAs and schools as a direct result of the announcement? On the 4 per cent. uplift promised for every child and school and the mandatory increase in the SFSS, how much will be cash in hand for the LEAs, how much will be cash in hand for the LEAs to give to schools, and how much has to be found from the council tax payer? The way in which that is divided up really does make a difference.
	On the modelling, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that last year there were losers and some winners? This year, according to him, everyone gets a prize, but inequities will be perpetuated. Schools with severe problems that fell back on their capital last year do not get differential treatment. LEA flexibility is not noticeably assisted. He has made 120 million available as a grantI am not sure whether it has to be repaid to LEAsbut where have those resources come from? Is that new money from the Treasury, and what strings are attached to it?
	Finally, has the new modelling taken proper account not only of the forthcoming teachers' pay settlement but of the progress of the workload agreement and the September uplift in pay spines? The right hon. Gentleman was supposed to have taken account of that, and told the House on 17 July that
	the commitment that I give is to make that announcement when we know the teachers' pay settlement following the proper review.[Official Report, 17 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 460.]
	That is not what is happening today, and I wonder which aspect of the commitment he does not understand. Either he is psychic, as well as being a good modeller, or the pay review is his poodle, or we cannot trust ministerial statements.

Charles Clarke: The statement addresses many of the issues that arose last year. One of the three key issues that arose then was the distribution of resources between local authorities. Today's announcement establishes floors to deal with that situation directly and explicitly. A second cause of the problems was the reduction in the standards fund. I have reversed the cuts in that fund to put the money back, which was not the case in the current year. A third issue was the way in which local education authorities decided to allocate money to individual schools and their central funds. I have put a cap on central funds and I require a per pupil minimum guarantee for schools.
	In those three specific cases, I have made changes to try to deal with the situation that arose this year. I acknowledge that the subject is complicated for all of us, and it is difficult for colleagues who have only just seen the statement to make a detailed analysis. However, I do not accept the charge, because it is not true, that we have not sought to address the issues that arose this year. In fact, we have set out specifically to do so. In addition, we have sought to address a point made to me by many teachers and people in local government: that one of the core problems this year was the short time scale for addressing the issues and changes that were taking place, which affected their ability to plan school budgets effectively. I am establishing today a time framework for the solution of those problems that will allow schools and local authorities to plan, which is a positive development.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that the implications of the announcement remain to be seen. That is a fair point, and it is fair, too, for local authorities and schools to ask what the statement means for them and how they should analyse it. My political request, which he may or may not be prepared to go along with, is that he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues do exactly what he saidlook and analyse before drawing conclusions. My criticism of the Conservatives is that they have jumped the gun. The Liberal Democrats have not behaved like that to the same extent, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to look directly at the situation.
	The extra money will go into the standards fund and the transitional fund, as we have said, and comes from DFES budgets. There is substantial LEA flexibility. The difference between the 4 per cent. minimum per pupil for schools and the 5 per cent. minimum rising to 6.5 per cent. for LEAs represents a significant resource, and the regulations that we are publishing will give LEAs more capacity to use it to target particular problems. May I tell the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in local government that it is important that LEAs take on that responsibility, analyse the problems in the LEA and use the flexibilities that I have outlined and the extra resources that they can draw down in certain circumstances to address them? That is the LEAs' responsibility, and it is one that they should welcome, as it is the right way to move forward. We have made assumptions about the final position of the pay review body, but I do not have any inside information. Like everybody else, I await its announcement later this year to see what its proposals will be.

George Stevenson: In spite of the Opposition's negative carping, may I warmly welcome the positive way in which my right hon. Friend addressed fundamental issues in his statement?
	I have three brief questions for my right hon. Friend. First, can he assure me that needs and deprivation will figure prominently in the consideration of affected areas? Secondly, on pupil numbers, will authorities such as my own in Stoke-on-Trent that are addressing that issue through the closure and amalgamation of schools be given every encouragement and direct assistance to create modern, 21st-century facilities? Thirdly, on LEA flexibility, is it not about time that we considered rolling some of the standards fund into LEAs, which, after all, are required to match funding?

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's general support, and can give him the assurances that he seeks. Needs and deprivation will continue to be a major consideration in funding for all the reasons that he gave. We will work with authorities that have to deal with falling rolls to try to assist them. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is keen in his capital programme to focus on getting brand new schools to deal with those problems, and I am sure that he will pay particular attention to Stoke's needs.

Edward Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman will know that Leicestershire LEA is at the bottom of the funding table. Consequently, schools in my constituency are among the worst funded in the country. What are the implications of the statement, both for our relative position in the funding league and the absolute funding from Whitehall to schools in Harborough?

Charles Clarke: I met an all-party delegation of colleagues from Leicestershire to discuss those precise matters, and I have tried to respond to their concerns in today's statement on transitional funding. Leicestershire is one of the third or so of authorities that will benefit from the settlement.

Claire Ward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that schools and parents in Hertfordshire have been led to believe by the Tory-controlled county council that they face significant budget cuts next year. Can he give them an assurance that that will not be the case? Can he assure my constituents that the funding plans that he outlined today will ensure that they have continued improvement in education in Watford?

Charles Clarke: I think that I can give that assurance. I am disappointed by the material that Hertfordshire county council has put out. On its website there is a range of information, but it is full of ifs, coulds, shoulds and risks. None of it is based on genuine information and assessment. I urge my hon. Friend and her colleagues in HertfordshireI do not mean her political colleagues but colleagues throughout Hertfordshireto give my statement a fair assessment, as I think that I can give the assurance that she is seeking.

Nicholas Winterton: A little earlier this year, the Secretary of State kindly met me, the education chairman of Cheshire county council, Councillor David Rowlands, and the schools manager, Joan Feenan, to discuss the Macclesfield learning zone, which is warmly and strongly supported by all its partners and stakeholders, including the county council, the borough council, the learning and skills council, local schools and the local college. As that project is critically important to my constituency, will he tell me how his very informative and encouraging statement will affect it?

Charles Clarke: I enjoyed my meeting with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The assurance that I have given today means that his county council and local education authority can discuss their future plans in a much more structured way, and therefore look at the Macclesfield project with a sense of confidence about future funding. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Linda Gilroy: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend's announcement covers the next two years. That will help schools to plan ahead. Last year, Plymouth schools were among those facing the most significant difficulties in making ends meet. I therefore welcome the targeted transitional help in the hope that it might be available to some of them. Can he assure parents, students and teachers in Plymouth that he will, as he helpfully did last year, listen to our representations on the continuing challenges that lie ahead?

Charles Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Her campaigning on behalf of Plymouth, like that of hon. Friends in other parts of the country, was one of the most effective factors in convincing me and my colleagues that we needed to address the transition issues as we have. Plymouth will be one of the authorities that benefit from that. I hope that that deals with her concerns, but I am of course always happy to listen to future representations.

David Tredinnick: I acknowledge that the Secretary of State met Leicestershire Members this year, but did not that meeting have to take place only because his Department so completely miscalculated the needs of the county? Is it not the case that 4 per cent. will not be enough for schools such as Barwell Church of England junior school and others in Hinckley in my constituency? Can he confirm that the targeted transitional grant applies to Leicestershire and that the most disadvantaged schools in my constituency will get the special relief to which he alluded?

Charles Clarke: I can confirm that Leicestershire, like Plymouth, is one of the authorities that will receive the targeted transitional grant. The 3.4 per cent. figure for school costs increases is an average, so there is variety around it. I have set the minimum per pupil guarantee at 4 per cent., which is significantly above that. I have alsothis is most significantgiven local education authorities the ability to deal with cases where there may be even greater variation from the 3.4 per cent. average as a result, for example, of the school's staffing structure. I do not know the details of the school that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That will be a matter for the LEA within the framework that I have set; I hope that it will be able to take it up in the proper way.

Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and particularly its early nature, because that offers the opportunity for further consultation. The statement is inevitably complex because we were confronted with a complex situation earlier this year, so schools will take a cautious approach to it. Crucial to its success will be the reassurance that their problems and those of LEAs will be listened to in order to tackle the financial difficulties that they have faced this year. That is particularly true in areas such as London, where a considerable amount of the available resources had to go into employment budgets because of the difficulties caused by the cost of living, including housing. Those issues facing London need to be considered further as part of the complex problem that we face.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. Like many in London, he will have welcomed the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister about housing for teachers in London: that will help to move the situation forward. Let me be clear. Within the framework that I have set, it is the responsibility of the LEA to talk to schools in its area about the best way of dealing with their financial situation. My aim is that those discussions should be constructive. Meanwhile, we are happy to continue to consider the issues that he raised.

James Clappison: Behind the byzantine complexity of the Secretary of State's announcement, is not there one straightforward factthat the Government's new local government funding formula has created serious funding difficulties for authorities such as Hertfordshire, which next year faces a shortfall of 25 million, or the equivalent of 600 teaching posts? Can he do better than to dismiss that as scaremongering, given that earlier this month the Labour group of Hertfordshire county councillors joined in that scaremongering by taking part in an all-party delegation to complain to the Minister who knows all about this? Can the Secretary of State say to what extent his announcement will make good that shortfall?

Charles Clarke: I urge the hon. Gentleman to ask his political colleagues in Hertfordshire to look at the statement and to analyse what it means before rushing to judgment. The Hertfordshire website says that schools might face a gap of as much as 25 milliona completely invented figure, by the waythat a 15 million gap could mean a funding shortfall, and that if schools have to make further cuts they risk a whole set of different consequences. That is a scaremongering approach that has been deliberately taken by the Conservative leadership of Hertfordshire county council. I urge them, as I would urge others, to analyse the statement and to come to a mature and considered view about what it really means for the hon. Gentleman's local education authority and schools in his constituency.

Karen Buck: Westminster city council, which is Conservative-controlled, found 21 million extra this year for a street cleaning contract and call centre, while failing to passport money to schools in the education settlement, which resulted in cuts and redundancies in schools. I welcome the minimum guarantee and the additions to the standards fund, but can my right hon. Friend assure me not only that he will ensure that that money is delivered to Westminster schools, but thatin recognition of the cost pressures in my boroughs and elsewhere in Londonnon-statutory, vulnerable and vital services such as early years and the youth service are protected when he negotiates with his colleagues in other Departments?

Charles Clarke: I am delighted that my hon. Friend asks that question. I simply repeat for Westminster, in terms, what I said to the House. The Deputy Prime Minister and I will write to authorities, including Westminster, to set out the Government's clear expectation that every LEA passports in full its SFSS increase into a matching increase in the schools budget. That is a message for Westminster as much asin fact more thanit is for many other local authorities, whose job it is to ensure that they do that. In addition, as I announced, we are protecting from central Government resources the amount of money allocated to children's social services, and rightly so. The spotlight will be on local education authorities such as Westminster to ensure that they deliver for children in their borough as they are obliged to.

Michael Fallon: Does the Secretary of State understand that he is simply trying to clear up a mess that he and his Government created by switching money from southern councils and imposing extra employer contributions? Does he accept that his 4 per cent. per pupil guarantee will be meaningless unless it means that no Kent school will be in budget deficit next year?

Charles Clarke: I cannot accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. The 4 per cent. per pupil guarantee is not meaninglessit has great meaning for schools in Kent, as in every other part of the country. It is fully funded. The extra resources for LEAsin this case, Kentcan and should be targeted on dealing with situations where budget deficits have arisen. Kent will take that decision. All the conversations that I have had with the leadershipdare I say it, the Conservative leadershipof Kent county council suggests that they will take those responsibilities seriously, and so they should. That is what shared funding means.

Ronnie Campbell: Last year, Northumberland's education authority had some trouble: I am keeping my fingers crossed that my right hon. Friend's statement will put all that right. On funding for free school meals, he may be aware that some of my hon. Friends and I tabled an early-day motion pointing out that people receiving working families tax credit do not qualify for free school meals, even though they are below the 13,000 threshold. That is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Charles Clarke: I have seen the early-day motion that my hon. Friend and others tabled. I am considering its terms carefully to ascertain how we can deal with his points. More generally, I hope that Northumberland can work with schools in the county to tackle the issues effectively.

David Laws: I thank the Secretary of State for taking the time to see a cross-party delegation from Somerset a couple of months ago to discuss the subject that the statement covers. Although I accept his earlier comments that we must consider the detail before leaping to judgment, he will recall that Somerset local education authority said that it needed an increase of 6 per cent. not 4 per cent. next year to deal with cost pressures and accumulated deficit. Will his statement therefore disappoint the LEA or does it contain something that I am missing?

Charles Clarke: My lengthy experience of the hard wheel of politics shows that statements usually disappoint local authorities and I confidently expect representations about disappointment. However, Somerset will receive targeted transitional grant, which will help with some issues. I am also acutely aware of some of the sharp party political antagonisms in Somerset about the approach to such matters. The LEA will want to work closely with schools to deal with them.

Oona King: I thank my right hon. Friend for a comprehensive statement. There is no doubt that the average school whose budget was affected by the 3.4 per cent. figure will be vastly assisted by the measures announced. Indeed, all schools will be helped, but some were hit harder than others. Those in Tower Hamlets have average cost increases of 12 per cent., despite the LEA passporting more than 100 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that any schools that continue to face serious budget pressures after the measures have been implemented will receive further help with funding so that we can continue to drive up standards, which have seen Tower Hamlets register the greatest educational achievement in the country?

Charles Clarke: I join in with my hon. Friend's tribute to the tremendous achievements of the local authority in Tower Hamlets. We met a delegation to discuss the very points that she raised. As I said in the statement, resourcesin the form of grant or loanare available to address matters in schools in Tower Hamlets, but on condition that the local authority works with schools to deal with the financial issues in the appropriate way. I know that Tower Hamlets authority will work constructively on that agenda, but the qualification is important. The extra resources are available on the basis of the LEA working properly with schools to improve financial management and deal with problems.

Richard Ottaway: Given the shambles in education funding in Croydon this year, the Secretary of State will be interested to know that I managed to obtain a copy of an internal document from Labour-controlled Croydon council. It estimates that underfunding this year is 7.5 million and that an extra 8.5 million is needed next year after wiping out the reserves this year to pay the deficit. Will he confirm that his encouraging but complex statement means that Croydon will have the extra 16 million that it needs to make up the shortfall this year?

Charles Clarke: I want to make two comments in response to that. First, the statement is complex and I hope that all political and other colleagues in Croydon will examine the precise implications for Croydon before reaching a judgment about the way in which to proceed. Of course, I acknowledge that there were difficult problems in Croydon this year; the hon. Gentleman raised them specifically. I hope that the announcement will enable them to be tackled effectively.
	Secondly, I shall not simply take a figure that has been generated from an internal working document in a local authority and say, Aha, all is as it should be. We should have a discussion and dialogue and I hope that that will take placealthough I cannot guarantee it, given the hon. Gentleman's rolein a non-partisan way and in a spirit of doing our best for schools in Croydon.

Judy Mallaber: Although I do not want cuts in other local authorities or schools, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the overall impact of the measures will not perpetuate the unfairness whereby pupils in authorities such as Hertfordshire and Hampshire get so much more money spent on them than pupils in equivalent schools in authorities such as Derbyshire? Will he continue to try to redress that balance?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an important, powerful and true point. I am glad to be able to say that the variation between a floor for LEAs of 5 per cent. and a ceiling of at least 6.5 per cent. shows that progress to try to deal with some of her points continues, at least in education.

Andrew Lansley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the acid test is the accuracy and validity of his estimate of cost pressures on schools? He must recall that Philip Hodgson, chair of Cambridgeshire schools forum, wrote to him on 17 July and set out in detail the anticipated cost pressures. He said that the unavoidable pressures would mean an increase of 10 per cent. in the schools budget elements of Cambridgeshire's education formula spending. How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile 3.4 per cent with the 10 per cent. pressures on the LEA? Even if Cambridgeshire is on the ceiling of 6.5 per cent.I hope that it isthere will be a further funding gap in the coming year to add to this year's gap.

Charles Clarke: To be frank, there are a series of issues about Cambridgeshire's relationship with its schools that need to be examined in promoting good management. Staff salaries in some schools in Cambridgeshire take more than 90 per cent. of a school's budget. That is not the best position and the LEA needs to examine it.
	Let us consider the assessment in the letter in July to which the hon. Gentleman refers. What assumptions does it make about teachers' pay and so on? I do not believe that my correspondent was in a position to know the detail at that point. As I said earlier, I hope that people will consider what we have said carefully, assess what it means for their authority and schools, and form their judgment.
	The figure of 3.4 per cent. was reached after substantial discussion, including with local government representatives and head teacher associations, to try to get a shared view of appropriate average inflation. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is an average and there is therefore variation.

Jonathan R Shaw: I thank the Minister for School Standards for meeting a delegation from my constituency to discuss the schools budget earlier this year. I agree that Kent county council has discussed schools funding in an unhelpful way, scaremongering among head teachers. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should enter into dialogue and discussion sensibly and maturely. Will he confirm that Kent and the Medway towns are among the authorities that receive additional support?

Charles Clarke: After being advised by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, I can confirm that Kent and Medway are on the list of authorities that will receive targeted transitional support. More important, I want to echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) about the nature of the discussion now. It must be weighed, considered and based on the facts. I hope that Kent county council will behave in that way. I shall attempt to do that, too.

Gregory Barker: East Sussex has fared badly under the settlement in recent years. What hope does the statement hold for solving the chronic overcrowding in classrooms in my constituency? For example, at key stage two in Battle and Langton primary school, we have classes of 37 and 36 in temporary huts. In Seddlescombe primary school, there are three classes with a total of 86 children who share two small classrooms and an activity area. At King Offa school in Bexhill, an excellent new headmaster is struggling with an historic deficit and faces the loss of his entire information technology suite because the leases are up for renewal. Apart from simply incremental increases in pupil funding, what measures does the statement contain to tackle chronic overcrowding?

Charles Clarke: First, I do not believe that incremental increases should be sneered at. Many schools have been exercised by not receiving a regular incremental increase. Establishing a per pupil guarantee for the first time is important. Secondly, I confirm that East Sussex will benefit from the transitional grant. Thirdly, the position of the specific schools, with which I am not familiar, is a matter for the LEA to consider directly and decide how to tackle. There are hard decisions involved, but I, as Secretary of State for Education and Skills, am not going to decide precisely how the funding arrangements should affect the particular schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is for East Sussex, with the headroom that it has, to decide how to target its resources to deal with the ills that the hon. Gentleman has described.

Andy Reed: I welcome the statement and, in particular, its early nature, which will give schools in my constituency and elsewhere time to get to grips with the complexity of what has been announced today. I have also been reassured by the discussion on the transitional elements, but as my right hon. Friend knows, Leicestershire is the worst-funded local education authority in the country and it has had specific problems this year related to the funding formula and to difficulties that exist elsewhere in the country. Will he assure me that the transitional relief will make a substantial difference to many of the schoolsnot just individual schools in my constituencythat have enormous deficits from this year? That would not involve little 4 per cent. or 6 per cent. increases, because those schools have seen enormous changes. We would then get back to the position that we were in before 200203, because we have seen an enormous 630 per pupil increase since 1997. We want to get back to having those increases, rather than cuts.

Charles Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks. As I said earlier, Leicestershire is one of the authorities that receive a transitional grant. However, I say to the LEA through my hon. Friend, rather than to him, that it is important to appreciate that Leicestershire has to manage its budgets well. It must work carefully with its schools, address the problem of deficit budgets and face up to these issues. Any local education authority can choose either to be a formula calculating machine through which money goes to its schools, or to be the leader of the education system in its area. I understand that most LEAs want to be leaders of their system, and what I have announced today will enable them to do that. They will, however, have to seize that responsibility and not regard themselves simply as a transmission belt either for complaints from schools to me, or for money going into schools. They will have to exercise leadership in transforming the education system in their locality.

Michael Jack: I have just completed an exercise in writing to all the schools in my constituency, and all those that have replied have said that this year their budgets are too low to meet their cost pressures, and that they anticipate that being the case next year as well. The Secretary of State will therefore realise that a 4 per cent. increase at school level in budgets that are already deemed too low will not generate sufficient cash to get those schools out of their difficulties. However, in deference to his request that we consider carefully what he has said today, may I ask him whether he would willing to commit himself to coming back to the House early in the new year to debate these matters, once the schools have had the opportunity to work out exactly what his statement means for them?

Charles Clarke: I am very happy to continue to debate this matter in a variety of forms. We have already had a variety of debates on the subject in the House and I am sure that we shall continue to do so. I do not know what letters the right hon. Gentleman has been writing recently, but it is important that those that he writes to his schools should give a flavour of the actual situation. He used the word anticipate, and I understand why people anticipate that bad things are going to happen when many people tell them that that is going to be the case. I urge him, however, to acknowledge the reality that anticipation needs to be based on facts and proper assessments. I repeat what I said earlier in that regard. I hope that he, as a former Treasury Minister, will acknowledge that it is important for his party to come clean about what it is going to do about school funding. A 20 per cent. cut in education funding, which is his party's policy, would not help schools in his constituency.

Points of Order

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that Staffordshire did not get a look-in in that debate, although the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) was rising

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps Staffordshire will do well next time.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The first item of business this afternoon is a programme motion on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, but there is no provision for debate. Is there any way of making the House aware that this matter has to be brought before the House because the Government were defeated yesterday in the Bill's Standing Committee?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made mention of it, so it is now on the record. Orders of the Day

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the Order of 21st October 2003 (European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill (Programme)) shall be amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words Thursday 30th October of the words Tuesday 4th November.[Joan Ryan.]
	The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 144.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Dangerous Drugs

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 200102, on The Government's Drugs Policy: Is it Working?, HC 318-I, and the Government response thereto, Cm 5573, together with the Home Office Departmental Report 2003, Cm 5908, and the Sixth Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 200203, on The Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern Ireland: Interim Report on Cannabis, HC 353, and the Government response thereto, Sixth Special Report from the Committee, HC 935.]

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
	That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th September, be approved.
	The order will reclassify cannabis as a class C drug on 29 January 2004. The use of illegal drugs and class A drugs in particular is one of the greatest scourges of our times. Drug misuse impacts on the well-being of individuals and families, as well as striking at the very fabric of our communities. Most hon. Members see too many cases in their constituencies where drugs have destroyed lives and fed the cycle of crime, violence and decay. Having been in this job for some months now, I can say that drugs and the crime connected to them are most prevalent in some of the poorest and most disadvantaged communities in the country.
	When some 250,000 people are hooked on heroin or crack, a group responsible for 60 per cent. of acquisitive crime; where many street robberies are driven by the urge for money for the next fix; where the presence of one addict can create a neighbourhood crime spree that leaves dozens of victims and consumes many hours of police time, this Labour Government are absolutely right to focus on the most dangerous drugs, to intervene most vigorously in the most damaged communities, to seek to break the link between addiction and the crime that feeds it and to reduce the harm that drugs cause by addressing the chaotic lifestyle of those users who are harming themselves and others.

Brian H Donohoe: Is the Minister aware, in respect of what she presents as statistics, that she is using surveys relating to 16 to 19-year-olds, when it is 14-year-olds who are most at risk? In taking cannabis, those young people are 60 per cent. more likely to damage their brain. Have the Government taken that into account in making these proposals to the House?

Caroline Flint: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are considering and have considered all the relevant evidence. More importantly, we have taken into account the work of the statutory advisory committee, which provides the scientific evidence on which to base our decisions. I tell my hon. Friend that I am acutely aware of the conditions that lead young people to start using drugs, to misuse alcohol and cigarettes, and to end up with teenage pregnancies or a life of crime. The Government are taking steps to deal with those problems, whether it be through sure start; getting money through to the poorest income families; or trying to raise the opportunities and aspirations of those who feel that the education system does not offer them enough. Those are all part and parcel of trying to give our children and young people the skills and confidence to assert themselves and not end up abusing themselves through drugs and, unfortunately, becoming involved in crime.
	Educating young people about the dangers of drugs, preventing drug misuse, combating the dealers and treating addicts are the key elements of the Government's drugs strategy. Our programmes of intervention bring those arrested into treatment so that we can begin to break the cycle of committing crime to fuel a drug habit.

Martin Salter: Does the Minister recognise that there are three essential components to any credible drugs policy: enforcement, education and treatment? If our education policy is not credible and we tell young peoplewhether they are 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18that all drugs are the same and that there is no difference between cannabis and heroin or between cannabis and the evil of crack cocaine, we are doing young people of this country a grave disservice.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. We have long had a system of classification for class A, B and C drugs and our proposals are about having a more informed view today, in the 21st century, of the comparative harms that various drugs can do. On that basis, we can have a better dialogue with those who may be tempted to take drugs and protect them from the worst abuses.

David Marshall: The order applies to the whole of the UK, but is the Minister aware of the great concern about it in many parts of Scotland? Has she consulted Ministers in the Scottish Parliament and, if so, what was their response? Can she understand why some Labour Members cannot support the order here today?

Caroline Flint: I totally understand the passionate views on all sides of the debate. It is a complex issue and a complex area. I assure my hon. Friend that in talking to my predecessor, consultation was held with Ministers in Scotland and there was support for the reclassification. Discussions were also held about Northern Ireland. I appreciate that passionate views are held on both sides of the House

Several hon. Members: rose

Caroline Flint: I hope that if I am allowed to continue my speech, I can elaborate more fully on why this strategy is the right way forward.

Graham Brady: The Minister has called for an informed debate. In that spirit, does she agree and accept that the cannabis that is freely available today is between 10 and 15 times stronger than that available 20 or 30 years ago? Is it not therefore perverse to be downgrading its classification in legislation?

Caroline Flint: I am afraid to tell the hon. Gentleman that the scientific evidence does not fit his analysis. The evidence of our forensic science unit is that the cannabis that it has sampled is not stronger than it was some years ago. Many of the statements made about the strength of cannabis do not fit the facts in respect of the largest supplies of cannabis that come into this country.

Several hon. Members: rose

Caroline Flint: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick).

David Winnick: Although I would rather people did not take cannabis, it is a fact that many do so without going on to hard drugs. Is not it also a fact that the last survey undertaken showed that more than 120,000 deaths in a single year were caused by smoking, in addition to the deaths caused through alcohol abuse? Should not the people who are condemning what the Minister is suggesting also take that into account?

Caroline Flint: People take all sorts of substances either in moderation or in excess, which can create different levels of harm. We are trying to debate the different levels of harm produced by controlled drugs. As I was telling the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the Forensic Science Service suggests that new growing techniques in the late 1980s and 1990s have led to some new products coming on to the market with average tetrahydrocannabinol levels two or three times greater than for other cannabis products. However, in general, the THC contentthe particular content that affects the strength of cannabisvaries widely, but much of it does not differ significantly from the cannabis used years ago.

David Burnside: Does the Minister have any sympathy with a constituent, a father of young children, who rang me last night and implored me to vote against this measure? What a bad example the House is going to set to parents who are trying to protect young children who are constantly targeted at the school gate in both primary and secondary schools. Does the Minister sympathise with that example?

Caroline Flint: I have sympathy with all parents who want to protect their children from the harms that exist in our societywhether it be drugs or other pressures and dangers that they face along the way to adulthood. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we need to have an honest discussion with our children. We have to make them better informed. Children and young people talk to each other and can see for themselves the different effects of drugs, so if we do not conduct an honest discussion, they will not listen.
	I reaffirm to the House what I said in parliamentary questions earlier this week, which is that the measure is not about legalisation, but about having a mature discussion on the relative harms of drugs.

Several hon. Members: rose

Caroline Flint: If I may continue with my speech, I hope to elaborate on how the guidance of the Association of Chief Police Officers will provide greater clarity on how to police this matter.

John Robertson: Does the Minister not accept that the message going out to young people is that cannabis is no longer as dangerous as it was before?

Caroline Flint: I can tell my hon. Friend that the whole point of having three categories of classification is to assess scientifically the relative harms of different sorts of drugs. That was why we examined the various effects of cannabis in comparison with stimulants and then with class A drugs. I believe that that represents a credible way forward.

John Bercow: Given that the annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction found that 42 per cent. of 15 to 34-year-olds experiment with cannabis at least once, and that it must be desirable to break the link between the soft drug user and the hard drug pusher, will the Minister undertake at least to reconsider the arguments for legalisation, taxation and regulated sale as advocated eloquently two years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)?

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that I would not concede that point. We have already considered the matter. I am aware that some hon. Members want full legalisation, while some want to maintain the status quo and not reclassify at all. Our evidence suggests that legalisationthe order is not, as the hon. Gentleman's question makes clear, about legalisationwould lead to an increase in the consumption of cannabis. I should reiterate that cannabis taking does cause some harm, though not as much as other drugs.

Several hon. Members: rose

Caroline Flint: I want to make some progress with my speech, which might well answer some of the questions. I have already taken several interventions. I shall make some progress and see whether I can give way again later. I want to get to the end of my speech and I am aware that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
	As I said, young people are our highest priority. Direct expenditure on tackling drugs has risen to more than 1 billion this financial year and will rise to nearly 1.5 billion from April 2005an increase of 44 per cent. Much of that money will go towards prevention, education and working with young people to dissuade them from taking drugs, as well as with those for whom drugs has already become a problem. We have launched the FRANK campaign, using carefully researched advertising designed to affect attitudes to illegal drugs. The message is that drugs are not cool and can ruin lives. Education policies are now in force in 96 per cent. of all secondary schools, and drug action teams have developed young people's substance misuse plans. The right strategy must use what works. We must be honest and credible and rely on science, not prejudice.

Jimmy Wray: I used to run a rehabilitation centre. All those who attended it started on cannabis. Will the Minister explain whether a child who gives a cigarette to a friend will be committing a crime?

Caroline Flint: With respect to my hon. Friend, there are many reasons why people start to take drugs, or get involved with them. Many start by smoking tobacco, or misusing alcohol. I have met a number of drug users over the past four months who not only use class A drugs, but are also alcoholics. A number of different issues are involved. The evidence is not conclusive that cannabis is a gateway to class A drugs. In fact, the evidence is that the vast majority of cannabis users never move on to class A drugs.

Pete Wishart: The Minister will have seen the recent EU report that suggests that 35 per cent. of 15 and 16-year-olds have taken cannabis. If we are to address the problem, we need drugs laws in this country that are credible to young people and which they can understand and respect. Young people are routinely breaking the law, and that leads to a lack of respect for law and authority. Should not we address that as a matter of priority?

Caroline Flint: I am grateful for that intervention, and I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
	I have spoken about the underlying themes necessary for securing the right strategy. Those themes led my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to announce to the Home Affairs Select Committee in October 2001 that he was asking the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider the classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The fact is that cannabis use has increased steadily over the past 30 years, in spite of its being a class B drug. The treatment of all drugs as equally harmful and dangerous has lacked credibility with young people and devalued the educational message about its harmful effects, as hon. Members have noted. Individual police forces have developed disparate policies on the policing of cannabis possession, based on their own view of the relative seriousness of the offence. That has led to inconsistency and a lack of proper political accountability.

David Cairns: My point follows on from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). This order applies throughout the UK, but policing has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Is it the Minister's understanding that the effect of the order will be to allow the police to free up more time to target drugs such as heroin? In my constituency, heroin is far more damaging, pernicious and destructive to communities than cannabis.

Caroline Flint: Absolutely. These are the pressures and challenges that face us as we get to grips with the most vicious outcomes of taking class A drugs, in respect of both individuals and communities, because of the crime that is thereby created.
	Our drugs laws and educational messages to young people must reflect the scientific assessment of the advisory council if they are to be credible, convincing and, ultimately, effective. The reclassification of cannabis will help the Government to convey a more effective and credible message, to young people in particular, about the dangers of misusing drugs.

Bill Tynan: Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on the fact that drug dealers obviously have targets? When the Government take the decision to reclassify, will not those dealers find it easier to persuade young people to use cannabis?

Caroline Flint: The message must be clearcannabis is illegal. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members laugh at what is a very serious point. After reclassification, cannabis will remain illegal, and possession will remain an arrestable offence. The Criminal Justice Bill raises the penalties for dealing and trafficking to 14 years. That is a pretty strong message to those who would encourage young people to take drugs.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention. A few minutes ago, she referred to consultations with relevant authorities in Northern Ireland. I am sure that she is aware that the trade in, and exploitation of cannabis, by paramilitary organisationsand especially by loyalist paramilitariesfunds their lavish lifestyles and their military activities, for want of a better term. Will the Minister say what consultations she had with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and what their outcome was? I am sure that it was not in favour of the reclassification of cannabis.

Caroline Flint: I understand that the Organised Crime Task Force in Northern Ireland is paying a lot of attention to the issue of drug trafficking. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, the Criminal Justice Bill increases the penalty for dealing and trafficking to 14 years. That runs alongside reclassification, and sends a strong message to the paramilitary organisations, gangsters and others about how seriously we take trafficking and dealing in these drugs. However, I repeat that we need to send a credible message to young peoplein Northern Ireland, just as much as in England, Scotland or Wales.
	We want to get across to young people the simple message that cannabis remains illegal and that it is harmful. That is not helped by some hon. Members, who are attempting to distort the debate and to dilute that very strong message. Alongside schools, drug action teams and other bodies, we want to make sure that we make information available to young people, and that we get it to them. That involves using the media, and going to places where young people meet. We need them to listen to the credible message that we want to put across. We do not accept that a high level of cannabis use is inevitable. We want to make an impact on that usage through advertising and education, but we need an honest debate as well. We want to begin to turn young people away from becoming regular cannabis users.

Ann Winterton: Does the Minister accept that the result of this honest debate, which is fairly sophisticated, will fly over the heads of young children? Recent polls taken among older children in junior schools show that those pupils believe unequivocally that the Government are not just reclassifying cannabis, but making it legal. Sophisticated arguments do not wash when it comes to getting drug prevention measures across.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Lady and others contribute to that confusion. The more such people say that reclassification is legalisation, the more the message is distorted.

Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister reconsider her words? I did not say that reclassification was legalisation. I was asking her a question and making a point about what young children believed, according to recent polls.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter for debate, and the Minister will have heard what the hon. Lady said.

Caroline Flint: I am delighted that the hon. Lady's remark should be on the record, and I shall make sure that I use it extensively.
	My point is that young people form their views about our drug laws according to the messages that they receive from people in positions of responsibility. Unfortunately, the view has been expressed continuallyI have read it myself, and heard hon. Members repeat itthat reclassification is somehow about legalisation. We must work hard to deal with that, but young people know about drugs and they know people in their communities who take drugs. They may have rather more information than we might consider appropriate, but they are informed by their peer groups. We cannot attempt to influence young people if we do not have a credible message.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister has been generous about giving way, but does she accept that downgrading cannabis from class B to class C will lead to an increase in use? Does she agree that, because of its gateway properties, the use of cannabis will in due course lead to the greater use of hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin?

Caroline Flint: I do not think that the evidence for that stacks up. We should view the position as it currently is, and drug use has increased. That applies to class A and class B drugs. We have not had a strategy that has worked, and in particular we have had no strategy to which young people are prepared to listen. That is what we are trying to deal with.
	As I said earlier, I believe and the Government believe not just that we need better information and education, but that reclassification will provide an opportunity to introduce a consistent and properly thought out regime for the policing of cannabis in line with its status as a class C drug. As I also said, we have introduced proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to retain the power of arrest for the possession of cannabis; but following extensive debate during the Bill's passage through this House and another place, the Government have agreed to table an amendment providing for the power of arrest not to apply to other class C drugs such as tranquillisers and anabolic steroids.
	Over the past 18 months, the Association of Chief Police Officers has worked hard to compile guidance for forces on the policing of cannabis. It published the guidance on 12 September. I pay tribute to the constructive way in which it approached its task, and to the end result, which is very clear and straightforward.
	Under the guidance, which applies to all persons aged 18 and over, there will be a presumption against arresting a person who is found in possession of cannabis. A police officer may, however, arrest when a person is smoking in public view, when a person is locally known to have been repeatedly dealt with for possession of cannabis, when there is a locally identified policing problem or when the person in possession is in the vicinity of a school or other premises used by young people. It is important for people to read that guidance, and to see how clear and straightforward it is.

Mark Oaten: Can the Minister justify the treatment of class C drugs in a different way when it comes to arrest?

Caroline Flint: We considered the way in which the other class C drugs are used and provided. Having listened to the debates here and in the other place, we felt that the issue was not clear-cut enough for those drugs to be included in the same category as cannabis.
	The ACPO guidance provides for people under 18 to be dealt with under the statutory warning scheme set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In most cases a formal reprimand will result for a first instance of cannabis possession. It will be administered at the police station. That is very important. We want to engage young people who are using illegal drugs such as cannabis, in order to establish whether there is any misuse problem.
	Over the past few months, I have been pleased to observe how, through arrest referral, the police on the front line are working with their drug action teams and referral workers to tackle issues related to arrest and charge. Expertise shared with the police and others will make it possible to establish whether a young person has an underlying problem that needs to be investigated, and whether that person needs to be referred for appropriate help.
	The proposed policing regime must not be misinterpreted as toleration of unrestricted public use of cannabis without consequences. It is not, as one Member suggested, a baby step towards legalisation. The overall regime for policing cannabis possession will ensure that action is properly taken by the police against someone who is causing a problem or who needs help, while avoiding the needless charging of large numbers of young people. It makes sense for parents as well as law enforcement.
	The regime will also enable the police to redeploy their resources for the tackling of more serious offences, including dealing in the class A drugsheroin and crack cocainethat do the most harm. Last year's Lambeth experiment provided good evidence that when police resources are deployed to key priority areas, results can be achieved. During that pilot, the number of arrests for class A dealing offences increased by some 10 per cent.

Kate Hoey: I thought the Minister might get round to the Lambeth experiment at some point. In fact, were not more people attracted to hard drugs because of a feeling that there was no policing in relation to drugs generally? People who were not normally likely to be in contact with hard-drug criminals were put in contact with them because of their easy access to cannabis.

Caroline Flint: Many issues arose during the Lambeth experiment. As I hope my hon. Friend recognises, it led to a lot of joined-up discussion among a number of people and agenciesMPs, local authorities, the drug action teams, police and othersabout how to tackle drug misuse in communities. The ACPO guidance has given us a clearer understanding of how cannabis use in particular can be better policed and dealt with.
	Dealing in any illegal drug remains a serious crime. I have already mentioned an increase in the maximum penalty for dealing in a class C drug from five to 14 years' imprisonment. The penalty for dealing in cannabis will remain at its current level following reclassification.
	There are many different views in the House on the correct response to the cannabis issue. Some Members advocate complete legalisation, arguing that it would cut the link between young users and criminal dealers. As I said earlier, the Government believe that that would inevitably lead to a massive increase in the use of cannabis and in health problems. Others believe that cannabis should remain a class B drug, arguing that it is a gateway to class A drugs, that it is smoked in higher concentrations than it was 20 or so years ago, and that it may be linked to mental illness and lung cancer. There has been a huge debate on those issues.
	The issue of whether cannabis is a gateway to class A drugs has been debated for many years. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs looked at that and concluded that no causal link had been established, since many other factors act as gateways. I said a bit about that earlier in my speech. As for the suggestion that cannabis smoked today is up to 20 times as strong as that smoked 20 years ago, I have already pointed out that that does not match the evidence that the Forensic Science Service has analysed from cannabis seizures.
	Research on a possible link between cannabis use and the development of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, was published in the British Medical Journal as recently as last November. The advisory council considered the issue in depth, but concluded that no clear causal links had been demonstrated. On the other hand, the council believed that cannabis use could unquestionably worsen existing schizophrenia. It will continue to monitor any research developments, but it is important to distinguish between worsening and causing mental illness.

Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Caroline Flint: I want to continue my speech, as I am conscious of the time that I have already taken up. [Hon. Members: He is on your side.] In that case, I may change my mind.
	As for the possible link between cannabis use and the development of lung diseases, clearly the smoking of any substance is dangerous and a real health risk. However, those who seek to draw inferences from the number of premature deaths caused by tobacco smoking need to be very cautious. While the smoking of cannabis is undoubtedly harmful, it should be borne in mind that in general cannabis users smoke fewer cigarettes per day than tobacco smokers and that most give up in their thirties, thus limiting the long-term exposure that we know to be the critical factor in cigarette-induced lung cancer.

Paul Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Caroline Flint: No, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

Gordon Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
	I am interested in the therapeutic use of cannabis. It was available to doctorsin the medicine chestbefore 1973. Many people out there take it because conventional medicines do not relieve their pain. What advice will the police be given when they find someone taking therapeutic cannabis?

Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agrees that we need to work on that. We are currently awaiting the outcome of scientific research into whether cannabis can be used medicinally to alleviate pain. We shall have to deal with the issues as they arise, certainly in the context of policing.
	No approach to the drugs problem is simple or problem-free, but I hope that the strategy I have outlined will provide the best possible opportunity to introduce credibility to our drugs education, sharpen our messages about cannabis and give priority to law enforcement and treatment directed at class A drugs. The strategy has widespread support, not just from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Home Affairs Committee but from the police and all major organisations that work with drug misusers.
	I commend the changes proposed in the order, and hope that the House will support it.

Oliver Letwin: The motion is, in practice, only part of the jigsaw that the Government have constructed. The purpose of the jigsaw is clear: to get to the point at which there is crypto-legalisation of cannabis, in the sense that most young people will be only marginally deterred from taking it. They may be arrested, and they will be warnedand the warning will be that if they are subsequently arrested they will be warned. At the same time, the Government intend to strengthen the prohibition on the sale of cannabis, or rather to retain its present strength. The Minister made it clear that that is the admitted effect of the policies that she announced today.
	I recognise the force of the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). We may hear the same thing from the Liberal Democrat Benches in a moment. It is perfectly plausible to argue that there could be a significant beneficial impact by doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to a moment ago, namely, taking cannabis outside the field of drug dealing by hard drug dealers, legitimising it properly and allowing people to buy it under regulated conditions. I do not favour that policy, but I understand the rationale for it. It is also possible to argue that we should try to prevent young people from taking cannabis by doing what is done in Swedentrying to take more effective measures to deter young people from taking it.
	The policy that the Minister announced today is neither of those two things. It will have a clear effect, which relates to the questions about the gateway. I am not making an argument about whether cannabis as a substance, in any of its forms, is in principle a gateway drug. I accept the Minister's point; my experience, too, is that people with addictive personalities, who are on heroin, crack or cocaine, have typically moved through a cocktail that began with tobacco and alcohol and went on through cannabis, amphetamines and many other things. I am not making the argument that cannabis as a substance is more of a gateway than any of those other drugs but, and this is the critical flaw in the Minister's logic, there can be no doubt at all that if the only legal way to obtain cannabis in England is through buying it from a person who is, ipso facto, a very serious criminalthe Minister is ensuring that anybody selling the substance is exposed to a maximum sentence of 14 years, making the crime equivalent in its severity to some of the worst crimes currently committedthe Minister is putting young people in touch with very serious criminals[Hon. Members: No.] She is. If the Minister makes it the case that young people believe that she is crypto-legalising the substance and that they cannot obtain it except from a serious criminal, she is taking steps that irresponsibly ensure that a larger rather than a smaller number of young people will be in touch with serious criminals.

John Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Letwin: I will in a moment, but not until I have finished the logic.
	The purpose of those serious criminals will be to drag those vulnerable young people upwards from cannabis to the hard drugs in which the money can be made[Interruption.] Yes, it will. The hon. Lady for some part of Lambeth[Hon. Members: Vauxhall.] Forgive me. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)I am her constituent so I should knowwas right to point out that the evidence of the Lambeth experiment was that serious criminals moved into the area in an effort to drug people up from cannabis into hard drugs. There is no escape from that reality.

John Mann: Is not the right hon. Gentleman living in the past? There has been an increase in hydroponically grown cannabis. Estimates made in Australia by Hemp Embassy, major proponents of the legalisation of cannabis, are that 80 per cent. of cannabis is hydroponically grown, and that the vast majority of that is grown by people in their homes for their own supply. Health is the issue for the vast majority of people, rather than the buying of cannabis from so-called drug dealers.

Oliver Letwin: I fear that the person living in an unreal world is the hon. Gentleman. I know that he shares my passion about hard drugs, and if he were to go to our inner cities[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) says that he does not know what I mean. I mean that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) shares my passion to do something to get off hard drugs the many young people whose lives, and the lives of those around them, are being destroyed by them. We share that ambition, but the hon. Gentleman is living in a fool's paradise if he believes that it is not the case that large numbers of very serious criminalsmade very serious criminals by the Government's legislationwant to sell cannabis to people in order to lead them into the hard drug world. That is a fact which cannot be denied.
	The House's purpose should be not to deny that fact, but to argue about whether the Government's policy makes sense, and it certainly cannot make sense to let young people be led in that direction. I do not know by how much the legislation will do that, and nor does the Minister. We do not know how far the guidelines and their effects on police behaviour will lead young people to take more rather than less of that substance, but we know that that must be the direction and that much of the cannabis will be sold by serious criminals who are engaged in hard drug dealing. The tendency, therefore, will be for more rather than fewer young people to be led into hard drugs.

John Mann: rose

Oliver Letwin: I will take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, although there is still another step in my logic.

John Mann: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should go to the inner cities. I have not done that, but I have visited my own community. I have spoken to 16-year-olds in all the schools in my constituency and I have talked to at least half of the current heroin users. They outline a straightforward position: five years ago, and before, people bought cannabis and heroin from the same dealer, but now they do not. People do not buy cannabis from heroin dealers or pushers but from different people. Indeed, on health issues, a great deal of cannabis is not even being soldit is being given away. Many young people are producing it at home and giving it to their friends.

Oliver Letwin: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is not describing the only pattern of activity. The fact remains that hard drug dealers are still in the business of selling cannabis. Even if his suggestion were right, he would have to explain how it could be rational that the young people he has just described would be subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years for that activity. The Government are turning those young people into very serious criminals. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape that fact. The Government's policy is a dreadful muddle.
	Why have the Government introduced this policy? Do they deny the logic that I have described? Before the debate, I thought that might be possible, but the Minister has told us that legalisation would increase use. How, then, can she suppose that crypto-legalisation will not, to some degree, also increase use? Before the debate, I thought that the Minister would take the view that, under the proposals, people would not feel that they were routinely breaking the law. However, she has told us that young people are routinely breaking the law at present and that she intends cannabis to remain an illegal substance. She is saying that she is legislating in such a way that when young people buy, possess or take cannabis they will know that they are acting illegally. She knows that she is turning the people who sell the drug to them into serious criminals. She does not deny a single step of my logic, so what is the point of the policy? Why do not the Government introduce either proper legalisation of, or a proper clampdown on, cannabis? Why this muddled middle?
	I do not specialise in saying such things about my political opponents, but in this case I think that the Home Secretarywho has chosen not to attend the debate for reasons that only he can tellis seeking spurious, short-term popularity.
	The polling evidence shows that the Home Secretary is on to a winner and that this policy is popular. Considerable numbers of our fellow citizens believe that selling the stuff should be highly illegal and almost equal numbers believe that not too much should be done about people who are buying the stuff. The Home Secretary is in line with current public opinion, and I think it is for that reasonI can find no other explanationthat he has chosen to adopt this tactic. That is not a responsible way to conduct the government of this country. We should not have, in a country like ours, a Government who adopt a policy about a matter like this on the basis of seeking spurious short-term popularity. We should consider the fate of our young people.

Brian Iddon: We have had this debate for countless decades. There have been endless reports. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Runciman committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs all made this recommendation? How many more committees must we have before we make a rational decision based on scientific evidence?

Oliver Letwin: I do not think that a thousand committees will ever diminish the fact that when this orderI realise that the Government will use their majority to get it throughand the accompanying legislation have gone through the two Houses of Parliament, young people will be enticed to buy more, or more often, a substance from dangerous criminals, and they will then be led into hard drug use. That is not a rational policy and no number of committees will persuade me that it is.

Gordon Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the report.

Oliver Letwin: Of course I have read the report.

Mark Oaten: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a critique of the system and outlined all the problems, but he has not once said what the Conservative party would do to tackle the issue.

Oliver Letwin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and the House if that is not clear. I have made my position clear. I believe that there are two rational possibilities, one of which

Ian Lucas: Which is the right hon. Gentleman's?

Oliver Letwin: I will say which in 15 seconds, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.
	There are two rational positionsone is total legalisation and the other is a Swedish-style effort to prevent use. I prefer the latter. If I need to spell it out, that means that I believe that Sweden is rightthat it has a better policy than the Netherlandsbut I accept that either of those positions can be argued for rationally, and the Government's proposals are the sole middle ground which cannot be argued for rationally. Indeed, the Minister put up no rational defence of it; she was all over the place. I continue to believe that the Home Secretary does not want to make the argument because he does not have an argument. What he is seeking is short-term popularity, and that is a very bad thing.

David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Letwin: I was about to end my speech, but I will of course give way to the Chairman of the Committee.

David Winnick: I am grateful. If it is only the Home Secretary and his team who are in favour of these proposals, why is it that when the matter came before the Home Affairs Committee and the Committee divided on the motion:
	We do not, therefore, support the Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug,
	only one Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who has just put her hand up, voted for it? The other Conservative Members did not. If there is no logic in what the Home Secretary is doing, why is it that not all the Conservative Members on the Committee voted with the hon. Lady for that motion?

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Gentleman will obviously have to ask them, not me. I am very clear in my mindand I think that over time the British public will be very clearthat this is not a sustainable system. There are hon. Members in the House who see this as a stepping stone on the way to full legalisation. I can understand their logic, although I think that the number of young people who will suffer on the way is intolerable. However, the Minister does not even make that argument. She has not even made the argument that this is the greatest political courage the Government can currently summon up on their way to full legalisation. I think that she has not made that argument because the Home Secretary does not believe in itI think that he believes that this is a resting point, and a popular resting point. That is irresponsible.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time for the debate is limited and many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

John Mann: If I were to be persuaded by one of the argumentsI am sad to see that, entirely inappropriately on an issue such as this, there are three-line Whips all round the placethe Government's argument is not the one that would persuade me.
	I remind myself that in any vote in this place it is important to look at the text and the substance of the vote rather than the arguments posed, and at the heart of this debate is the question, why cannabis? Why is there this obsession with cannabis? I surmise that probably it is because it is the only illegal drug that a majority of Members have sampled in the past and therefore feel most competent to speak about. However, cannabis is not the only drug used by Memberstobacco is used far more widely, and I confidently predict that the main drug that will have been misused by Members is alcohol.
	The Swedish policy on drugs for young people is straightforward. It does not distinguish in any way between behaviour in respect of alcohol or of cannabis, because the health risks are increasingly evident, and are great, from both. Where the Government have failed, with a good opportunity

Julian Brazier: rose

John Mann: I wish to develop my argument, but then I will give way.
	The Government have failed to take the opportunity to reclassify all class B drugs, not just cannabis. There is no logic that says that amphetamines and methamphetamines should be class B rather than class A. They are the main drugs in respect of criminal behaviour and hard drugs in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and they are spreading across America. Therefore, they should be in class A.
	That codeine is a class B drug is also nonsensical. The main problem with opiates in New Zealand comes from over-the-counter codeine-based prescription drugs that people then bake and turn into morphine. The Government and their advisory council have got themselves into a bit of mess, and a presentational mess, by picking out cannabis as opposed to all the class B drugs, and instead of reclassifying and removing class B drugs.
	We should have three classifications of drugs. The first should be hard drugsdrugs that in themselves will seriously damage health and may kill, and the taking of which leads to criminal behaviour. For example, the taking of amphetamines and crack cocaine leads to a range of criminal behaviours, including violent crime. With heroin, because of the nature of the addiction, the result is acquisitive crime. That should be the first classificationhard drugs that lead to both ill health and crime.
	The second classification should be illegal drugs such as anabolic steroids. In the headlines tomorrow and in the playgrounds of Britain, the talk will be not about cannabis, but about another class C drug: anabolic steroids, and the decision made or not made by the Football Association today on the use of, or the avoidance by top sportsmen of testing for, anabolic steroids. We call those drugs class C at the moment. They should be, and can be, called soft drugsthe taking of which does not lead to criminal behaviour, but will cause a serious health problem. Cannabis is onethe new and hydroponic forms of cannabis, skunk in particular, even more so. Anabolic steroids, and things like codeine, should similarly be class C drugs.
	The final classification of drugs should be tobacco and, in particular, alcohol. Tobacco kills millions, and alcoholwhich, in terms of drug misuse, causes greater policing problems and probably greater criminal activity than any other single drugis, of course, misused more by Members and by the general public than any other drug.
	Those should be the three classifications, and the Government should get out of the muddle of having classes A, B and C by removing class B.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his case. He has accidentally misled the House about the position in Sweden, where they take a tough line on alcohol abuse, as he said, and on binge drinking. They also regard all cannabis taking as illegal, while the moderate and sensible consumption of alcohol is legal. The Swedish model seems very successful to Conservative Members.

John Mann: For young people, the Swedish model is the same as that in this countrythe taking of alcohol by young people is illegal. As regards health, in Sweden they have in-patient detox. Conservative policy on rehabilitation is based on the Swedish model. Regardless of whether it is cannabis, alcohol or any other drug, if people are taking drugs irresponsibly and have health problems they are automatically sectioned. They are put into detox centres compulsorily and treatment follows.
	That is a good model and we could develop it here. It will be difficult to sell to the British people the idea that young people who are falling over in the streets because of excess alcohol consumption should be treated on an in-patient basis for five days in a secure detox centre. We are a stage away from taking the general public with us. An improved classification of drugs that identifies alcohol as a major problem along with other drugs is fundamental.

Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we should be expanding the classification of bands of drugs? Does he share my concern that when ecstasy is a class A drug along with heroin and cocaine, that exaggerates the danger of taking ecstasy while diminishing the danger of heroin and cocaine? We must have a classification system that is credible to young people. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in his equation.

John Mann: We need to have a system that is credible to young people, but an expanded litany of classifications will confuse them. I have talked to young people in my constituencyit is not just 40 or 50 per cent of them using cannabis; in most of the schools in my constituency recreational use of cannabis is 100 per cent. among 16-year-olds. It is the main drug of recreational use, even more than alcohol. The reason is the price. At the moment, it is much cheaper than alcohol and much more easily available. That has some serious health consequences, and it is the health issues that we need to address.
	Will we treat young people as fools? There are 600 heroin addicts in my constituency. I have mothers whose sons have died from overdoses and constituents whose brothers have hung themselves because of heroin. I am not soft on drugs. We try to suggest to young people that these drugs are all the same and that they should say no to drugs. Say no to which drugs? We do not mean alcohol, because that is legal at 18. The problem is that drugs will create health problems, and some drugs will create far more than that. That is why in my constituency there are 600 heroin addicts whose lives have been ruinedalthough increasing numbers are in treatment, I am pleased to say. There were 12 deaths from overdoses last year, there are mothers who fear the deaths of their sons, and there are individuals who fear for their own health and lives and who do not see such a separation or difference in the drugs market.
	We need to separate the drugs market in people's eyes. That is not a weakening of drugs policy. I appeal to my colleagues who are thinking of voting against that model to look at the detail and think of the precisionrather than a weakening of drugs policy, it is a clarification and a strengthening. If we can move on from our obsession with cannabis, we can deal with the fact that treatment for those addicted to class A drugs remains wholly inadequate compared with the rest of the world, and we are only slowly getting people into effective treatment.
	I will not take up the time of the House. I will write to hon. Members to expand on my views and my experience of how what we are doing in Bassetlaw with a GP-led treatment procedure is beginning to work. That is the model that should be used in the rest of the country. That should be the mainstay of drugs debate in this House.

Mark Oaten: I will try to be brief as a number of hon. Members wish to speak. It is a pity that we have only an hour and a half to debate such a fundamental issue, because we could have expanded many of the arguments during a longer debate. That said, I welcome today's opportunity because the Liberal Democrats have argued for many years that we should at least have a grown-up debate on drugs in this Chamber. I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to move away from focus groups to an evidence-based approach, having heeded the work of the Home Affairs Committee, the advisory groups, and the Runciman committee. Our view is that although there are issues about the way the Government plan to operate the process, we will support them this afternoon because what is on offer is a step in the right direction.
	The Liberal Democrat party has been a lone voice for far too long arguing that drugs policy should be reconsidered and, over the years, we have received horrendous press headlines when we have talked about the subject. At last the Government now seem prepared to face up to some of these hard issues, as do many Conservative Members, in particular the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who has very progressive views. It is members of the public, not politicians, who also need to face up to those issues. Five or 10 years ago, they may not have been prepared to consider decriminalisation or legalisation but now they are very engaged with the problem indeed. I am talking about parents in particular. They do not want to be hard on drugs; they want the right policy in place to tackle what they see as a growing problem.
	The extent of that problem has been acknowledged by the report of the European drugs monitoring centre, to which reference has already been made, which shows that this country has the biggest problem in Europe, but that we also have some of the toughest laws. Clearly, our policy is not working. That is why I say to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that it is important that we engage in this debate. The status quo is clearly not satisfying the public demand that we should tackle the issue and that approach is causing major difficulties on the streets.
	The Minister's remarks are important because she stressed that the proposed change does not represent a softening-up on drugs. That is important for two reasons. First, we have to send a strong message that if we reclassify, the gain to be had is that we will get much tougher on the harder drugs and the dealers. That strong message must come through. It must be coupled with strong education aimed at our youngsters about the harm caused by harder drugs. Secondly, we should not allow this to be seen as a green light for taking cannabis. It is important that we get that message across, too. The Liberal Democrats support that approach.

Oliver Letwin: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said about an evidence-based approach and the growing problemthat is common groundwill he agree that there is something wrong with his policy if cannabis and hard drugs use is increasing rather than diminishing two or three years after the proposals have been enacted?

Mark Oaten: Absolutely. I have no problem with that. We have learned from the approach that has been taken in Lambeth and that has informed this debate. Similarly, we will want to learn from this experiment. I think that there could be a number of outcomes. As has been said, moving towards some form of legalisation may be the way forward. The evidence may well suggest that we have all got it wrong and we need to think again. One option that is not acceptable is a do-nothing approach. However, I certainly support the idea that we should reconsider the matter in two years' time.
	On a cautionary note, which contradicts the approach that the Liberal Democrat party has taken, there is a slight danger of our taking a middle-class approachthat of The Guardian or The Independent reader. On some estates and in some areas the arguments that are being propounded do not make any sense.
	Three years ago, I spent 24 hours in a drug rehabilitation centrenot for personal reasons, but because I was interested. I went in my jeans and T-shirt and I slept the night. No one knew who I wasone of the advantages of being a Liberal Democrat is that one can go under cover. None of the 17 folk I chatted to, who had serious drugs problems, favoured the legalisation of cannabis or relaxing the law on cannabis. I had gone in there with my cosy and comfortable upbringing, thinking that that was the solution. I left with some serious doubts and I have struggled with them. However, I have looked at the evidence and I have listened to some of the arguments that have been put forward. I have come to the conclusion that this re-classification is a step in the right direction.
	I want to consider some of the arguments. Let us deal first with the critical argument about whether the proposal will result in a redirection of resources to dealing with hard drugs. The Minister could have told us more about that, and I would have welcomed hearing more about how the Government want to redirect police time. We did not hear enough about that. At the moment, 40,000 individuals are apprehended, which involves a lot of police time. If there is a fall in the number of those apprehended, where will the resources then be spent?
	In Lambeth, for example, there was a 44 per cent. increase in arrests for cocainegood newsand a 10 per cent increase in tracking trafficking, good news. If that can be replicated across the country, the policy change will have been a good move. About 85 per cent. of residents in Lambeth supported such a change[Interruption]the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) should let me develop this pointbut there were some difficulties. Certain individuals came into the area, and there was some increased drug use. It seems to me, as a layman, that that happened probably because it was a pilot site and that there would not be a flood of such individuals going to a certain area if the proposal were rolled out nationally.
	Research done by Rowntree shows that it believes that the police time spent on dealing with cannabis costs about 50 million, which represents about 500 full-time police officers. I should like to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to shift those resources to get tough on harder drugs.
	Let us briefly deal with whether such a change will act as green light and increase the number of individuals using cannabis. At the moment, about half of 16-year-olds have tried cannabis at some time, so we already have a bad situation. If that figure was perhaps 10 or 15 per cent., there would be some interest in arguing that the change would send a green light and there would be a flood of yet more individuals taking cannabis. However, we seem to have a problem already, and it is unlikely that the change will increase usage. In fact, lots of the evidence from other countries shows that reclassification does not significantly increase the number people who suddenly decide that they will take cannabis.
	Let us touch on the health issueand we all know the arguments that have been made. It is not my place to consider in depth the scientifically based evidence, but I am happy to buy it, and I am pleased that the Minister acknowledged some of mental health concerns. However, we need more research on that issue.

Caroline Flint: I understand that there will be no winding-up speeches, so I will take a note and get in touch with the hon. Gentleman, but it is our absolute desire that such work will concentrate on class A drugs. That is why we are tackling the criminal justice interventions programme and identifying those people who commit crime who have a class A drugs problem, so that we can break that cycle. We will monitor what happens after reclassification and work with police forces and the crime reduction and disorder partnerships to ensure that we get some results on which we can report.

Mark Oaten: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention because that evidence is crucial if we are to persuade the public that this is the right shift.
	I have most difficulty with the gateway argument. I entirely understand the concerns that hon. Members have raised about access to dealers. I too struggle with that issue. Again, the evidence suggests, however, that about 50 per cent. of cannabis used is home grown, so the exposure to dealers is becoming limited. We need to consider two key arguments to tackle the gateway to drugs.
	First, we can reduce the move to the next, harder drug by using this opportunity to have a serious, mature and grown-up debate with youngsters about the harm done by those drugs, so that youngsters then fear them. We can have that debate because if we are prepared to be honest and upfront about the dangers associated with cannabis, youngsters are more likely to believe us when we talk about some of the harder drugs. Again, evidence from the Netherlands suggests that that gateway to harder drugs has just not materialised.

Brian Iddon: I refer the hon. Gentleman to an excellent research document, produced by DrugScope, entitled, Cannabis and the Gateway Hypothesis, and I shall read this paragraph from that document:
	Gateway theory is often misunderstood. It is not about cannabis leading to harder drugs, it is about common profiles, environment, experience and access.

Mark Oaten: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I met representatives of DrugScope on Monday, and they made that very point to me.
	Having supported the thrust of the Government's proposals, I want to probe them a little moreI accept that the Minister may not be able to respond formally, but I would appreciate a response in writingabout why they have decided to link reclassification with changes to the power of arrest and sentences. At no point did the Select Committee on Home Affairs suggest that the proposals should be linked with new powers of arrest or increased sentences. In fact, that was not mentioned in the Government's drug strategy and, as far as I am aware, the Government have consulted no one about that, other than the police. That is an error because there are knock-on consequences.
	Liberal Democrat Members are concerned that those changes will send a very confused, mixed message and that that will lead to the police taking all sorts of different approaches. Frankly, if there is a gain as police time is shifted to dealing with harder drugs, I am concerned that we will lose some of that gain by maintaining such powers of arrest and, indeed, increasing them. I do not understand why the existing powers, under which people who are found unlawfully in possession of a class C drug can be warned, cautioned or issued with a summons to appear in court to face charges of unlawful possession, are inadequate. The police can confiscate the substance. On conviction, those individuals face a maximum penalty of two years in prison for possession, or five years in prison for supply. Surely the existing power to handle class C drugs use is sufficient. Why have the Government chosen to increase those powers?

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he not recognise that what happened in the Lambeth experiment was that the Metropolitan police discovered young people who were openly smoking joints in the faces of the police officers and saying, We are breaking the law, and you can't do anything about it. Ho, ho? That is why the police asked for the power of arrest. Does that not demonstrate the kind of problem with which we are dealing in making something quasi-illegal or quasi-legal?

Mark Oaten: I do not think that we differ on this issue. It seems absolutely clear that, under existing class C powers, if people are smoking cannabis and walk into a post office and blow smoke into a policeman's face, the police could do as I just said: warn, caution, issue and, ultimately, take the case to court. So those powers are in place already, and I do not understand why the Government want to increase them in this way.
	The Minister said in her opening remarks that there will be an amendment to change the power of arrest, so that there will be no power of arrest for some drugs currently in class C, but there will be a power of arrest for cannabis, which is now going into class C. I do not understand the logic of having different forms of arrest for the same class. Surely the point of having such a class is to say that certain drugs are similar, but the Government suddenly want to attach a different form of arrest to one of those drugs. The Government need to make up their mind: is cannabis now B2, or are they moving those other drugs into a class D? There is no logic at all in having a different form of arrest in the same classification.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention just as he is about to conclude his speech. Since the Liberal Democrats often represent their sister partythe Alliance party in Northern Irelandwill he clarify, for my own purposes, whether the views that he has expressed today in support of the legislation to reclassify cannabis are also shared by that sister party in relation to Northern Ireland?

Mark Oaten: The honest answer is that I have not got a clue and I have not spoken to the Alliance party.
	In conclusion, we will support the Government on this issue, but we would welcome their thinking again about some of the confusing messages on arrest that they are sending out because this positive step forward has been slightly spoilt by those messages which will make progress difficult in the future. If it turns out that some of the new powers cause confusion, I hope that the Government will think again about those issues, perhaps as part of a wider review of how the changes are operating in two years.

Kate Hoey: I shall be very brief because I should like some of my colleagues from Scotland to be called to speak.
	It is quite disgraceful to put through something as important as this measure in one and a half hours. I do not blame the three Front-Bench spokesmenthe Minister gave waybut it is wrong to allow only half an hour for Back-Bench speeches. I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is not here. A very important issue is being debated, and it would have been nice if he had been here today.
	I have heard so much rubbish talked today about the Lambeth experiment that it would take me a very long time to deal with it all. I will not refer to that experiment other than to say that it was not a success. It was one of those schemes that was doomed to success from the beginning because the Home Office had decided that it would be successful whatever the outcome. As for the statistics, you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we can all say about statistics.
	We keep hearing about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the implication is that it is made up of most eminent and respectable peopleI do not disagreeand the font of all wisdom. It is important to point out, however, that it is part of the Home Office, it is not a scientific advisory panel, and many of its members have no scientific qualifications. It has about 32 members, of whom a substantial numberabout 13are committed to liberalisation of the drugs policy. It has no members from any organisations that have publicly said that they are not in favour of liberalisation. I therefore treat with a little bit of caution the assumption that everything that it says is right. [Interruption.] It has been suggested to me that I treat that assumption with a big bit of caution.
	Reclassification is sending out a mixed message. It sends out a signal to our young peoplewhatever the Minister says, and whatever she wishesthat taking cannabis is not harmful and that it is legal. We have seen already, since the Home Secretary's statement in the House, that increasing numbers of young people are taking cannabis, and when confronted by teachers, parents or police, they simply say, But it's legal. The message that that gives to young peopleespecially to those whose parents are keen to urge their children not to be involved with drugs that can be harmfulis to challenge their parents on the grounds that the House of Commons and the Government say that it is okay. We are sending out a very wrong message, which is also being sent out to the hard criminals and the real drug dealers. Whatever we say about people growing cannabis in their homes not having any dealings with such people, many people in my constituency would not even have the capacity to grow it in their own homes, so the only way that they will get it is through the criminal drug dealer.

David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this order will result in a much greater use of cannabis, which will consequently impose much greater strains on the national health service, and will also lead to people combining cannabis with alcohol and a significant increase in the number of road traffic accidents? Statistics and information are available that indicate that that is already happening.

Kate Hoey: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not have time to discuss the health risks, but anyone who has listened to those who treat youngsters at the sharp end in the health service cannot fail to see that this order sends out a message that will lead, perhaps not immediately but in the long term, to more people taking cannabis and to a huge strain on our national health service. The fact that it is being reclassified, which effectively means that people think that it is legal, means that the peer pressure among young people will be much stronger. At the moment, at least young people can say, This is not legal, if drugs are pushed at themat least they have that kind of excuse if they do not want to take the drug but are not feeling particularly confident. Again, this order sends out the wrong message on that.
	I have mentioned the link with the criminal element, which I saw in my constituency. What I want to ask the Minister is: why are we doing this now? What is the point of it? We need to look properly at the issue of classification. I agree strongly with some of the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)we need to examine this issue carefully and on the basis of proper argument. We should not go ahead with introducing this measure glibly. I genuinely cannot understand why we are going down this line. Reclassification will move us further down the route of considering drug abuse as normal, and I am not prepared to support that today.

Michael Mates: The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, has been conducting a report into the illegal drugs trade and drug culture in Northern Ireland. We published an interim report, because we knew that this order was coming before the House, to try to help the House in its deliberations. I want to make one or two brief points.
	First, drug use in Northern Ireland is different from in the rest of the United Kingdom. Cannabis is by far the most widely used illegal drug, and while street prices for most drugs are higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain, cannabis prices are comparable, which suggests that there is a reasonably regular supply to meet the level of demand. As other Members have mentioned, considerable confusion exists about the current status of cannabis, and since the Government's announcement to reclassify, individuals have begun to smoke cannabis openly on the streets and in the clubs and pubs.
	The Committee did not look at the health risks, but we expressed concern, as has been expressed by others, about the message that the Government are sending, both to drug traffickers and to international enforcement agencies, about the importance now being accorded to cannabis as an illegal substance. It is widely recognised that Northern Ireland has a serious problem with the growth of serious and organised crime, which has arisen as a legacy of the conflict. The criminal gangs, many of whom are linked to the paramilitary organisations, will exploit any opportunity for illegal profit. Demand for illegal drugs, particularly among the young, and particularly in relation to cannabis and ecstasy, has been growing over the last decade, and if criminals identify an increase in demand they will seek to meet it. The additional profits that they make will go to fund other criminal enterprises, such as fostering a market for heroin and cocaine, which at the moment barely exists in Northern Ireland, or possibly to fund further terrorist activity.
	While we welcome the fact that cannabis remains a priority for the enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland, the traders and the traffickers must still be caught before they can be punished. In making those points, the Committee in no way seeks to undermine what the Government are trying to do in focusing on class A drugs. What we are saying is that Northern Ireland is slightly different, and does not yet have a major class A drug problem, and we want to keep it that way. Northern Ireland does have a problem with serious criminality, however, and those criminals will exploit any opportunity that is given to them, such as the confusion that arises over the status of cannabis, for their profit and to the detriment of society there.
	I ask the Minister to reflect on those concerns. We would be grateful for a further assurance that action is being taken to ensure that the message that cannabis is still illegal, and for good reasons, remains clear, and that the greater significance of the cannabis trade within Northern Ireland is recognised by the enforcement authorities throughout the UK and abroad. There is much more that I could say, but time is short and I know that others want to contribute.

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that you could do at this late stage to extend this debate? It is unsatisfactory that we have had only one and a half hours to debate this important UK-wide issue. The debate on the Mersey Tunnels Bill is coming up next, which could continue until any hour. Surely it is within our scope and within the responsibility of the House to debate this issue properly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that that is not a matter that is in the power of the Chair. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Chris Bryant: I concur wholly with what has just been said by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). To have only one and a half hours, and only half an hour for Back-Bench speeches, on an issue that affects every constituency in the land, and which is being debated by every young person in the land, seems to me to be folly.
	If we were devising a drug and alcohol strategy for the United Kingdom from scratch, knowing what we know today about the health effects of alcohol and tobacco compared with those of cannabis, I am almost certain that we would not be starting from where we are. As we know, alcohol and tobacco are far more addictive and injurious to people's health. Every year, 120,000 people are killed because they smoke tobacco, and half of all people who continue to smoke for most of their lives die of the habit and lose 16 years of their life. The medical legacy of alcohol is every bit as pernicious: hepatitis, cirrhosis, gastritis, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, pancreatitis, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, mouth, oesophagal and liver cancer, foetal alcohol syndrome, blackouts, fits and neuropathy are all part of the problemas I am sure that many Members knowto say little of the social damage in terms of domestic violence, marital breakdown, absenteeism and aggression.
	By contrast, cannabis is a saint, not a sinner. However, that does not mean that cannabis is harm free, because real health concerns exist. The tar yield from marihuana is precisely the same as that from tobacco, so smoking cannabis can pose a long-term health hazard. Indeed, a report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians published only a few years ago said:
	the smoke from a cannabis joint contains most of the same constituents as tobacco smoke, including the carcinogens. It is not surprising, therefore, that regular cannabis smokers develop chronic bronchitis and squamous metaplasia of the respiratory tract and it is likely that in time, it will become apparent that they are at increased risk of cancer
	compared with the risks from tobacco.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said, there is a further problem owing to the effect of intoxication, especially for people who drive. It is difficult to assess the precise problem, although a recent assessment showed that 10 per cent. of a sample of 284 drivers who had been killed by fatal accidents had cannabis in their blood stream. Of that proportion, 80 per cent. had not used alcohol, so it is quite probable, although not certain, that their intoxication was solely the result of cannabis use. Unfortunately, there is no roadside test to measure cannabis intoxication, which is why Professor Gold's Comprehensive Handbook of Alcohol and Drug Addiction says:
	The role of marihuana in road traffic accidents and other types of accident is vastly underestimated.
	I think that that is pretty much the accepted view. A report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee accepted that cannabis could worsen the course of schizophrenia, although there is little real evidence that it may precipitate the disease.
	The honest truth is that the medical evidence thus far is entirely uncertain. We cannot know the full human pathology of cannabis, which is why the Government's reports for the Department of Health are vital and we look forward to reading what they say.
	There is some evidence that cannabinoids can be therapeutic, as has been mentioned, and Dr. Philip Robson's Department of Health report in 1998 made that pretty clear. The Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that between 1 and 4 per cent. of the UK's 85,000 multiple sclerosis patients are illegally using cannabis. Trials to date have been small and the results uncertain.

Brian Iddon: This point has not been mentioned in the debate, but has my hon. Friend noticed that the order will reclassify tetrahydrocannabinol from class Abelieve it or notto class C? THC will be the principal constituent of the new medicines that will come out of the cannabis era.

Chris Bryant: I was about to talk about precisely that, and hope that I can pronounce the word as well as my hon. Friend.
	There is more evidence suggesting that cannabis and cannabinoids, most notably THC or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, can relieve pain and be used as an anti-emetic, which is why they can be especially useful for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Most controlled studies offer secure proof that marihuana and THC are effective appetite stimulants, which is important for people with cancer as well as those with AIDS. Indeed, cannabis appears to have no immunosuppressant effect on people with HIV, although the largest study, which involved 5,000 people, took place in 1989 and the pathology of HIV/AIDS is now known rather better.
	Anecdotal evidence from several of my constituents supports the use of cannabis in the treatment of epilepsy, although it is ironic that cannabis was shown to have convulsant and anticonvulsant effects on animals, which were the subjects of the only substantial trials. It is suggested that cannabinoids can lower pressure in the eye, which would be useful when treating glaucoma. I represent the constituency with the highest level of glaucoma and blindness in Wales, so that is obviously a matter of interest. However, it seems that one would have to smoke 10 cannabis cigarettes a day to achieve the constant level of intraocular pressure that would be beneficial.
	As other hon. Members have suggested, there are those who believe that cannabis is a gateway to other drugs. They believe that taking cannabis of itself leads ineluctably, medically and physically, to the taking of harder drugs such as cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin. Simply put, that is not logical. The link is not direct or causal, but there is a link. As Drugscope told the Home Affairs Committee:
	Cannabis use puts individuals in social situations and supply transactions where they are more likely to experience people using, accepting and supplying more harmful drugs than others in the population.
	In other words, people buy cannabis from dealers and dealers also sell herointhat is certainly true in the Rhondda.

John Robertson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Bryant: I will not because I am conscious that I have little time.
	Some people suggest that the answer is to license cannabis and sell it at Boots. However, when similar policies have been tried or police have tacitly allowed coffee shops to exist in other countries, major dealers have hung around outside the shops because they know that the most likely new clients are existing cannabis users.
	Moreover, there is a more direct link between cannabis and other drugs. Professor C.H. Aston's report for the Department of Health on the clinical and pharmacological aspects of cannabis in 1998 said:
	with chronic use, especially of high doses, tolerance develops to some of the effects of cannabis (including the euphoric effect) and can lead to physical and physiological dependence, withdrawal effects on cessation of use and possible escalation to other more potent drugs of abuse.
	All that leads me to three central points. First, the Minister is right that we should proceed on the basis of sound medical advice as much as possible, rather than on simple prejudice or anecdote, but that means that we still need further hard empirical medical evidence and the Department of Health should work further on that. Secondly, it is only logical that a drug that produces significant medical problems, but ones that are minor compared with the effects of cocaine and heroin, should be treated differently in the law, which is why the order might be right. Thirdly, however, we should not encourage the use of cannabis. Cannabis is not okay and although it does not kill, it does matter.

Peter Lilley: I reiterate that it is a scandal that we have so little time to debate the order. I have barely 90 seconds in which to speak, so I shall reassert a point that I have made before. Unless and until we are prepared to move from reclassification to providing legal outlets, we will not break the link between the suppliers of hard drugs and the suppliers of soft drugs. We will continue to drive soft-drug users into the hands of hard-drug pushers, and we will not achieve the advantage of breaking the link, restoring respect for the law and enabling a health warning to be put on a legally available product and displayed in outlets in which the product is available.
	The Government have got the worst of all possible worlds. They will simultaneously encourage more people to use the drug because people will know that there is no effective punishment for its use, but it will remain illegal and thus be available only through illegal gangs

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can confirm to the House that the ruling that I gave a moment ago was in accordance with the Standing Orders.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 160.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th September, be approved.

Mersey Tunnels Bill

As amended, further considered.

Schedule 1
	  
	Amendment of the 1980 Act: Levying, Revision and Application of Tolls

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in schedule 1, leave out lines 35 to 37.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 16, in page 3, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert
	'(e) where necessary, to make compensatory payments and payments to provide appropriate noise insulation for residential properties at the entrance of the Kingsway tunnel.'.
	No. 3, in page 3, leave out lines 38 to 41.
	No. 4, in page 3, line 41, at end insert
	'taking into account that monies spent on such policies should relate to the relative proportions of the origin of traffic using the tunnels.'.
	No. 5, in page 4, line 2, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.
	No. 6, in page 4, line 8, leave out '(a) to (c)' and insert '(a) and (c)'.
	No. 8, in page 4, line 11, at end insert
	'(c) unless paragraph (b) of that subsection has been wholly complied with to the extent that monies borrowed for the purposes of the construction and operation of the tunnels have been wholly repaid.'.
	No. 9, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.
	No. 10, in page 4, line 16, after 'tunnels' insert
	'interest groups, trade unions, the Liverpool and Wirral Chambers of Commerce, the North West TUC and local representatives of Merseyside and neighbouring local authorities'.
	No. 11, in page 4, line 24, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.
	No. 12, in page 4, line 33, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.
	No. 13, in page 4, line 33, at end insert
	'(d) it has sought confirmation by the Secretary of State for its plans, to which end it must submit copies of all such objections and representations and such information and particulars as the Secretary of State requires in approving the desires of the Authority as set out in paragraph 5(a)(i) and (ii).'.

Christopher Chope: The essence of the amendment is to remove new section 91(3)(d) and (e) and therefore to remove the authorisation for the Merseyside passenger transport authority to make grants to
	the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive in connection with the Executive's ferries services operating on the river Mersey
	and to use tunnel income to make payments to
	the Authority's general fund for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies relating to public transport in its local transport plan, or for other purposes.
	The Bill has been discussed extensively in the House, but the amendment encapsulates the main concern about it.
	To remind hon. Members of the background, in August 2001, a consultation was conducted by Merseytravel that, although it has been criticised, produced some interesting responses. One question asked whether surplus toll income should be used to cross-subsidise and improve local public transport services, thus benefiting the wider Merseyside community. Of the 312 respondents, 23 per cent. were in favour, 208or 67 per cent.were against, and 10 per cent. were undecided. The proposals in the amendment are therefore in line with the wishes of respondents, the majority of whom do not believe that people who use the Mersey tunnels should have to pay extra charges to fund wider travel interests beyond the tunnels. It is a simple issue of cross-subsidy.
	Another question asked whether there should be a requirement to reduce tolls when the tunnel debt is paid off or whether that should be removed. The requirement is an inherent part of the tunnels' history, as it was believed that the time would come when the tunnels would be paid for, and those who used them would no longer have to pay for any costs other than running costs. In response to the question in the consultation, 71 per cent. said that the requirement should not be removed and only 17 per cent. said that it should. That is another clear expression of will by people who were consulted on that important issue. If the part of the schedule that we are debating had not been included in the Bill in the first place, its passage through the House would have been a lot smoother, as it goes to the heart of people's concerns.

Frank Field: That view is widely shared not just in the House but on Merseyside as a whole. If the transport authority had not included the power to tax in the measure, it would have had its Bill many moons ago.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that confirmation, and I know that he is trying to bring sanity to the issue. When dealing with private legislation, the House works best when there is a spirit of compromise. I do not understand why, disappointingly, we have not seen any of that spirit from the Bill's promoter. One of the weapons available to hon. Members involves trying to delay Bills. There is no point trying to delay Bills just for the sake of itthe purpose is to try to provide extra time for consideration so that people can respond to arguments and concerns. It is sad that, despite the time that has been given to the Bill's promoter to reflect on the wisdom or otherwise of this part of the Bill, it has declined to meet concerns expressed not just in the House but by the wider electorate in Merseyside and the Wirral.
	I am not going to say much more about the matter, because most of the points have already been made and will be no better for repetition. That is not to suggest that I and other Conservative Members do not feel strongly about it. We record our surprise that throughout the Bill's passage the Government, instead of abiding by the conventions that private legislation should be dealt with as unwhipped business and that hon. Members should be able to decide such issues on their merits, used their majority to force the measures through. That is most regrettable, because it is unnecessary, unhelpful and does not benefit the people of Merseyside. I hope that today we will have the chance, on a free vote, to determine the real will of the House so that it can take a view on the merits or otherwise of using toll income to cross-subsidise other transport projects.

Ben Chapman: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 19, which are tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), and which deal with the various purposes for which the tolls may be applied. I contend that the Bill provides Merseytravel with too great a power when it comes to spending tunnel tolls and that the powers that it already possesses regarding the use of tunnel tolls are poorly applied.
	I shall deal first with amendment No. 19. The Bill provides Merseytravel with the power to use tunnel toll receipts for projects other than the tunnelsthe principle of cross-subsidy to which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred. In one sense it already does that in relation to the Mersey ferries. The amendment, although essentially probing, would strike from the Bill the provision that allows revenue from tunnel tolls to be redirected to fund the ferries. That is not intended to harm or question the ferry service, which is famous across the globe as a loved and lauded part of Liverpool's image and heritage. I am sure that the ferries will be a key component of the capital of culture status that Liverpool has acquired.

Frank Field: My hon. Friend may recall that a previous Member for Wirral, West, who is now in the other placeLord Huntwas involved in the Bill through which the forerunner of Merseytravel tried to abolish the subsidy of the ferries. It had to give up in the end, having failed to win the measure. When the Bill leaves this House today, it goes to the other Chamber, where presumably Lord Hunt will be waiting for it.

Ben Chapman: I was not aware of that, but I can see why he failed, given the emotional attachment of the people of Merseyside to the ferries.
	Everything has its place and its purpose, and Merseytravel's is to cater for the public transport needs of the people of Merseyside. It is not entirely clear where the ferries fit into that. Most people would acknowledge that they are not the most efficient form of commuter transportindeed, they are primarily geared towards round trips and tourism. A quick glance at the website confirms that they are first and foremost a tourist vehicleand, of course, a successful one. The North West tourist board tells us that they are the second most visited paid admission attraction in the north-west, and they were recently accredited by the north-west visitor attraction quality service.
	Merseytravel's function, however, is to
	co-ordinate public transport through partnership initiatives, with the aim of delivering a fully integrated and environmentally friendly public transport network.
	The Mersey tunnels, which are primarily for private vehicles and subsidise a commuter service, are an anomaly. Yet the anomaly pales when one considers that Merseytravel operates a tourist attraction with public funds as part of its stated aim of co-ordinating a public transport network. That is at least questionable.
	Only one third of ferry passengers are commuters and instead of making a profit, the ferries cost 2.1 million a year, of which 700,000 is made up from tunnel tolls. The nature of investment in the ferries shows that they are a tourist attraction. For example, there has been investment in Seacombe to incorporate an international astronomy and space centre. There is also to be an expanded leisure and corporate entertainment programme in a new terminal building at Pier Head.
	The logic of Merseyside passenger transport authority's avowed motives for the Bill is that tunnel users should pay more money now to prevent people in the outlying areas of Merseyside from having to support the tunnels, which, by and large, they do not use. I reject that logic because the Mersey tunnels are the principal commercial artery of our conurbation and they therefore have an impact on the whole of Merseyside and beyond, in Lancashire, Cheshire and north Wales. The tunnels do not simply serve the people who live immediately at either end. Even if the logic held true and tunnel users should pay more money now to prevent people in outlying areas from having to support the tunnels, why does the same not apply to tunnel users being called upon to subsidise the ferries?
	The ferries are a long-standing and endearing symbol of Liverpool. Would not it be more fitting if they were funded from the precept? At least in that way, everybody would pay equally rather than some people being unfairly taxed for the purpose. However, Merseytravel
	works to promote the interests of Merseyside's travelling public while providing value for money for its local tax payers.
	In the case of the ferries, neither stipulation is fulfilled. Imposing on people who use the tunnels to subsidise the travel of the ever-diminishing number of commuters who use the ferries is hardly in the interests of the wider travelling public. An operation that loses 2.1 million a year cannot be classed as value for money.
	The charter that obliges Merseytravel to operate the ferries offers no get-out. It might say that it has no choice but to bear the loss with which the ferries are saddled. However, there should be other ways and the amendment is designed simply to pose some questions. For example, could the Mersey Partnership play a wider role? Could the North-West regional assembly or the regional development agency have such a role? Is there a role for the private sector?
	Amendment No. 4 proposes greater proportionality of the cost and benefit burden for tunnel users. According to Merseytravel, 65 per cent. of tunnel users come from the Wirral area, 16 per cent. from Liverpool, 10 per cent. from Cheshire and north Wales, 7 per cent. from Sefton and 2 per cent. from Knowsley. Those who support the Bill have long argued that people who by and large do not use the tunnels should not have to fund them through their council tax, as happened in the late 1980s. I believe that that is a false contention. If the argument were accepted, I hope that the Bill's proponents would see fit to ensure that those who pay the most in tunnel tolls reap the funding benefits from the receipts. Amendment No. 4 would therefore create such a quid pro quo.
	Merseytravel's spokesman at the Opposed Private Bill Committee suggested that the prospective Mersey tram scheme was an example of a project towards which MPTA might wish to direct toll revenues. It is a top priority for the authority. However, regardless of the tram project's merits, I do not agree with taxing and exploiting tunnel users to build that or any other project from which many of them will not directly benefit. They are ordinary people who work in hospitals and factories. They go to visit friends and relatives, and devote their energies and investment to Liverpool and the wider Merseyside sub-region, yet they are being taxed to pay for a facility from which they will not benefit.
	The Mersey has no viable road crossings within transferable distance, so to speak, and there is not adequate public transport to absorb the massive numbers of people who could be forced to abandon using their private vehicles to get to work if the tunnel tolls increase. Merseytravel has not shown how it would invest in providing viable alternatives for those displaced tunnel-users, the majority of whom, coincidentally, hail from the Wirral peninsula.
	There must surely be other sources of funding available. Manchester managed to get its tram system without taxing a particular portion of its populace; nor does it have the benefits, in funding terms, of being an objective 1 area. The Wirral gains little or nothing from the allocation of excess tunnel tolls, yet it will bear the bulk of the burden of cost. I can see no justification for that imposition, but I stress that it is the principles of the Bill, and the cost to the whole of Merseyside, that worries me most. This issue does not affect one side of the Mersey more than the other; it is a unitary problem.
	Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 propose to restrict spending on other projects until such time as the debt has been paid off. If tunnel tolls are regularly to be increased, at least let it be done in the name of financial propriety. The tolls have been a millstone round the neck of the people of Merseyside since the first half of the last century, and the long and short of it is that the tunnels cost 44 million to build, have collected 500 million from users, yet have debts of 100 million. If it were not for the way in which the tunnels have been managed, and for the money that has been siphoned off, they would now be debt-free and part of the normal road system.
	If Merseytravel's current private Bill becomes law, it will be the 13th private Act to deal with the tunnels. Those Acts have served various purposes, including authorising the construction of the tunnels. Many of them also contain sections that have had the effect of postponing the time at which the tolls could be reduced. Under this Bill, that perpetually distant promise would be erased altogether.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman expand on the interrelationship between what he has just said and the fact that there is to be a public inquiry later this year into raising the tunnel tolls with effect from 1 April 2004?

Ben Chapman: It is indeed curious that the Merseyside passenger transport authority is applying for an increase under the old regime at the same time as it is applying for automatic increases through the Bill. Merseytravel might have good cause to seek increases under the present system, for purposes for which it claims at the time, and in the past, it has always secured such increases, albeit after a public inquiry. I have no problem with tunnel toll increases that are justified and rationalised. I do have a problem with increases that are automatic and unjustified, except for the fact that the price of a loaf of bread has gone up. On that ground and others, I believe that this is a bad Bill.
	Whichever way we view it, the debt is a dreadful burden, and the traditional tactics of prevarication and procrastination must stop. Acknowledging the permanence of the debt's presence is not the answer. Each administration sought to pass the buck to the next, and delayed the fabled time of completion to another distant day. It is my hope that amendments Nos. 6 and 8 might focus minds better and that Merseytravel might even work to pay off the debt faster than is currently required. I suggest that a more formalised relationship between the raising of tolls and the repayment of debt is needed.

Stephen Hesford: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the sponsor of the Bill has sat on the Liberal Democrat Bench and on our Bench, and has now disappeared from the Chamber? My hon. Friend's important points are not being listened to and, I assume, will not be answered.

Ben Chapman: I have been remiss; I had not noticed what my hon. Friend tells me. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who is absent from the Chamber, will read the record of the debate assiduously.

Frank Field: It is not so much a question of reading it; we want answers today to take back to our constituents.

Ben Chapman: Indeed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby will reappear shortly to take part in the debate.
	There needs to be a more formal relationship between the raising of tolls and the repayment of debt. Following the repayment, should the consultation that the Bill obliges it to stage agree to MPTA using the tolls for other projects, it would then have a healthy pot to work from.

Stephen Hesford: It may be that my hon. Friend knows something that we do not. Are the Bill's promoters conceding these points?

Ben Chapman: It may be that the quality of my argument obliged my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby to leave the Chamber in despair, but I have my doubts about that.
	One would think that if one did what I was proposing, it would be big enough to sate even Merseytravel's burgeoning appetite, and that some thought could be given to reducing tunnel tolls and acting in the best interests of tunnel users. It might also mean that the five authorities received the lost money, which would be of benefit to council tax payers all over Merseyside. I will, of course, not hold my breath.

Frank Field: I rise to speak to amendment No. 16, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford). I welcome back to our proceedings and to our Benches my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) who represents the promoter of the Bill. I am sure that she will bear down with her normal forcefulness upon the probing amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) so that we can perhaps understand the mind of the Bill's promoter better than we have hitherto.
	The amendment would ensure that the residents in the area surrounding the newer of the two tunnels in Merseysidethe residents of Wallaseywere able to claim to have the cost of insulating their homes met by tunnel users. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West and I tabled the amendment so there could be no misunderstanding locally over that issue.
	Some Labour Members may have a wider brief in terms of their disputes with Merseytravel, but mine is narrowly drawn. There are many aspects of Merseytravel's activities of which I approve, none more so than its efforts to provide a more adequate bus service for my constituents while running a system whereby they cannot control those people to whom they give licences. That is the equivalent of the NHS buying treatments from the private sector, but the private sector saying, We will decide what operations we do on the patients you send us.
	We have the ludicrous state of affairs in which Merseytravel has to pay taxpayers' money to private suppliers of bus transportation but cannot dictate how that money is used in the best interests of our constituents.
	On all those fronts, I have no dispute with Merseytravel, but I do have a central dispute with the Bill, which I want to put on record. The Bill is a taxing measure, so I wish to underscore the points raised earlier by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) who, for once, did not make the most of the evidence that he put before the House.
	Usually, when voters are asked in surveys whether they would like someone else to pay tax increases so that they can benefit, most of them say, Yippee, that is a rather good idea. That used to be the attitude of the Labour movement towards increases in income tax when most of our supporters did not pay it. We were rather in favour of increasing income tax in those days. When the tax threshold fell and practically all voters paid direct taxation, sadly, after a rather long spell, we had to learn the lesson that our voters, like everyone else, do not like tax increases. The consultation of people in Merseyside was amazing and it says something about the generosity of character of fellow voters on the other side of the river that, when they could have taxed Wirral residents to their own benefit, they thought that it was not a good idea. That also tells us something about the measure before us.
	I may be corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby when she replies to the probing amendments, but I believe that we should have some list to demonstrate the way in which the Bill's promoter has tried to meet the reasonableness of many, if not all, of the amendments. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, it is a custom of the Housethough sometimes brokenthat the promoters of private Bills try to engage with those who are worried about certain aspects and, where possible, do a trade-off with them. How does the Bill differ at this stage of its proceedings from when it was introduced? I suggest that the promoter of this Bill has not conceded a dot or comma to the alternative views put forward.

Stephen Hesford: Does my right hon. Friend recall from previous debates that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), whom I see in his place, sat on the Committee considering the Bill? Not only has the promoter failed to engage with those who have an interest in the issues, I recall that it did not engage very satisfactorily with the Committee. My right hon. Friend made a similar complaint on a previous occasion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if hon. Members dealt with the particular group of amendments rather than previous history.

Frank Field: The message goes out that if we have another private Bill from this source, it would be suitable for some Members of Parliament to object so that they do not have to withdraw at a later stage. The House must be able to give proper consideration to a measure of this sort.
	I end where I began. I support much in the Bill, but it is a taxing measure. I am puzzled that the Government have allowed it to go forth without trying to have it amended. I am puzzled that the Government are prepared to use not only the payroll vote to whip the Bill through, but the Standing Orders of the House to allow us to debate it to any hour. Given the danger of a Labour Government being seen as a tax-raising body, the only reason that I can see why the Government are allowing the Bill to go ahead is that they do not understand what is in it. If they did, I suspect that they would have objected to the same provisions to which we object.

Robert Wareing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Bill is whipped through by the Governmentalthough they say that that is not what is happeningit will be the Government who will bear the blame for the cross-financing of services on Merseyside, and not the Merseyside passenger transport authority?

Frank Field: Some of us are doing our best to ensure that individual hon. Members are not to blame when our constituents are taxed in the manner proposed. If I represented CrosbyI have no wish to do so, as I love representing my constituencyI might have been tempted to introduce a Bill to tax people in Birkenhead to the benefit of voters in Crosby. However, even if I did that, in some muddled moment, the Bill would still not be fair or sustainable.
	The Government will get this measure for Merseytravel today, but the Bill will then travel to another place. It has aroused such opposition from some local Members that the Government have had to invoke the new procedure that allows a Bill to be carried over to a new Session of Parliament. It is clear that this Bill will begin to break records, in that it will have to be carried over to a third Session of Parliament. We will not be able to stop the Bill today, but the Government and Merseytravel may run into a lot more trouble in the other place.
	I hope that that is the case. I shall be working with those forces in the other place to make sure that the Bill does not become law.

Bob Spink: I rise to support amendments Nos. 19 and 16.
	Daily users of the Mersey tunnel now pay 500 a year more than most other motorists in Britain. The tunnel was meant to be free: that provision was in the original Bill. Most users want it to be free, and they expect the House to honour the original intention. That would be consistent and fair, and that is why I oppose this Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) explained amendment No. 19 extremely well, so I shall not repeat his arguments. However, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) raised a very important matter in relation to amendment No. 16. The amendment would remove the provision in schedule 1 allowing payment to be used for
	the Authority's general fund for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies relating to public transport in its local transport plan, or for other purposes.
	That is an extremely wide provision. Normally, general taxation would be used for that purpose. That is what happens in all other areas of the country. The Bill represents a further tax measure imposed by the Government. We have had 60 tax rises since 1997, and this would make the total 61or is it 63 now? I lose count. Moreover, the tax would be a stealth tax, according to any definition. The proposal would amount to an odious tax, and should be resistednot least because the tax-raising power cannot be removed once granted. It does not have to be reaffirmed by the authority of this House, which is what normally happens with tax-raising powers.

Andrew Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman giving a commitment on behalf of the new leader of the Conservative party that tunnel tolls will be abolished under a Conservative Government?

Bob Spink: I am delighted to be reminded that there is a vote on that matter this afternoon. I have not voted yet, and must not forget to do so. I am not authorised to give any such commitment.
	Amendment No. 16 may be one reason why this private Bill has suddenly become, in almost all respects, a Government Bill. The tax proposed is yet another Government tax, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead noted. The amendment would replace lines 38 to 41 in schedule 1 and insert a provision allowing the payments to be used to provide
	appropriate noise insulation for residential properties at the entrance to the Kingsway tunnel.
	If there is one aspect of this whole sorry Bill on which we can all be united, it is the need to provide decent noise insulation for local residents. In Committee we began to get round to defining the area affected, its distance from the tunnel, who would benefit from the work and who would not. Unfortunately there was a stitch-up, and we could not consider those important matters in detail. I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, however, and hope that if the Bill is passedalthough I do not want it to behis amendment will be incorporated.
	I am sure that the Mersey Tunnels Users Association would also agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It says:
	We believe that the Tunnels are making a profit and there is no need for any Toll increases.
	It states cogently:
	Large numbers of people use the Mersey Tunnels to get to work, and lots of small businesses need to use it several times a day. The tolls are a barrier discouraging movement between the Wirral and the rest of Merseyside.
	That sums it up well.
	I hope that the House will support amendments Nos. 19 and 16.

Andrew Miller: Amendment No. 3 was tabled by me and also by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). It is an unusual alliance: I think we have travelled together but onceon a train but not, as I recall, through a tunnel.
	The purpose of the amendment, and of related amendments, is to enable us to explore an issue that I raised in Committee. It relates to the many users who live outside the catchment area of the shareholders. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), a significant number of them come from my constituency, from Chester, from north Wales and from further afield.
	I understand the logic of the position adopted by the passenger transport authority in its surveya survey that may be accurate in so far as it has canvassed the opinions of people in the catchment area. Where it falls down, howeverI make this point to the Minister in particularis in its failure to address obligations in respect of best-value legislation. It is clear from best-value legislation introduced by the Government in recent years that, when examining matters relating to public services, any public authority must consider the impact on all users of those services, and also consult users' representatives. In my opinion, if the passenger transport authority does not accept that obligation in future, within the framework of the Bill, it will be acting ultra vires in respect of the best-value legislation. That will provide an opportunity for the Mersey Tunnels Users Association, for instance, to seek judicial review of the tunnel operators' actions. That puts an obligation on my hon. Friend the Minister because if that were really possible, as plenty of lawyers suggest, the Government would have to point out to the transport authority that it must consult users further afield and must find a proper mechanism for doing so.
	It is no surprise that, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, the survey showed that only a small percentage of people in the authority area did not accept that there should be cross-subsidisation. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) will recall the questions that Speaker's counsel posed to Mr. Owen in the Committee. In one exchange, counsel asked Mr. Owen:
	would you agree that it is fair to characterise the Bill which your clients are promoting as being innovative?
	Mr. Owen replied that cross-subsidies were provided for in other legislation, but the Speaker's counsel returned to the point, which was never challenged, that such a provision was a first for a private Bill. That raises some interesting challenges, so the Government should be wary; they need to give the transport authority careful advice.
	The essence of the best-value legislation was debated fiercely in the House, but all Members are firmly committed to the law, so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to keep those obligations in mind.
	Although the conclusions of the consultation process show that my views are a reflection of only a minority of current public opinion in the five authorities that comprise the shareholding group, I am certain that I express the views of the vast majority of tunnel users, who believe that their opinion should be taken into account when determining future tolls.

Bob Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with the term No taxation without representation?

Andrew Miller: I have read debates on that subject held both in the UK and in Washington DC. The people of Ellesmere Port and Neston, whom I represent, make a substantial contribution to the economic wealth of the region in which we are privileged to live. They have a right to be consulted about these matters. I do not accept that they should have a veto, but their views should be heard and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who represents the promoter of the Bill, to take that point on board.

Robert Wareing: I want to refer especially to amendments Nos. 10 and 13, which deal with consultation. Before I do so, however, I want to express my agreement with those hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who have commented that it is regrettable that the Government have taken sides on the Bill and have only come clean to the House at almost the last moment. Had they made their opinion clear at the outset, perhaps we could have had meetings with Ministers and some real consultation with central Governmentwhich, in the light of what has happened since, would have been highly desirable.
	I shall address many of my remarks to the Government. I am glad the Minister is present. I do not think that at this stage, while the Bill is in the House, we can change anything, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take some of these points back to Ministers in the other place, and that when the Bill comes before the House of Lords there will be some consideration of Government amendments dealing with some of my arguments.
	There is a real need to reinforce the rights of toll users to be consulted. I know that Merseytravel will say, rightly, that it consults widely already. I concede that it does, but the problem is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned, it takes little heed of what is said. It may well listen, but it takes no real notice. It has already made up its mind, although I think that it came under pressure during consideration of the first Bill. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was an earlier Bill, which was removed and replaced by this one, no doubt because Merseytravel felt that the people of Merseyside were opposed to the privatisation of the Mersey tunnels.
	My wish is that the Merseyside passenger transport authority should be required to justify its plans for the debt-free but tolled Mersey tunnels to the Secretary of State, and to listen and act on the ideas and views of consumers' representatives. In the year 2000, Merseytravel began a five-year programme of consultations, through its local transport plan, but those consultations have largely been ignored, particularly in respect of the Mersey tunnel. It is wise to remember whose money finances those consultations.
	In the consultation programme, four core objectives were identified. The first was to ensure that transport supports sustainable economic development and regeneration. The second was to moderate the upward trend in car use and secure a shift to more sustainable forms of transport, such as walking, cycling, and the use of public transport. The third was to secure the most efficient and effective use of the existing transport network. The fourth was to enhance the quality of life for those living and working in Merseyside.
	On the first point, economic development, I do not think it is at all conceivable that economic growth can be encouraged by a year-by-year increase in the tax that toll payers have to meet. On the second point, we all want an improvement in public transportthere is no difference between us on thatbut I do not believe that that should be achieved by methods that would, in effect, impose a tax on toll users and local businesses.
	I do not think that the third objectiveto secure the most efficient and effective use of the existing transport networkcan be met by the sort of cross-financing that has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead: paying for the ferries out of the funds raised from toll users in order to benefit other services. In any event, I do not believe that to be necessary. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), I have great affection for the Mersey ferries. Ferry across the Mersey means to me something even more important than the song, and I do hope that with the year 2007, when we shall celebrate the 800th anniversary of the city of Liverpool, and the following year, when the city becomes European city of culture, that investment will comebut not by these meansinto the Mersey ferries. That is one of the most attractive means of bringing tourists to Merseyside, and not just to Liverpool.
	The final point was about enhancing the quality of life for those living and working in Merseyside. Many workers who live in the Wirral and work in Liverpool use the Mersey tunnels to get to their work. Many Liverpool people and many of my constituents travel to work at the Vauxhall plant over the water, as we say on Merseyside, in the Wirral. Many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South commute to Liverpool each day. How can their quality of life be improved by these year-by-year increases in taxation? Incidentally, there is a possibility that they will exceed the increases in the retail prices index.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned taxation without representationhe will know all about that because it was a Tory Government, under Lord North, who were told that when the colonies parted from the British empire. I often think that that was one of the greatest disasters in history in view of American foreign policy today, but that is another matter.
	In its 2001 consultation, Merseytravel asked, first:
	Should the Mersey Tunnel toll levels be index-linked with inflation?
	The majority of people said no, which shows that consultations are merely something to be gone though, in the view of Merseytravel. Secondly, Merseytravel asked:
	Should the requirement to reduce tolls when the Tunnel's debt is paid off be removed?
	Seventy one per cent. said no. Furthermore, Wirral borough council was among that numberat least one of the local authorities was firmly against that proposal.
	Although I accept that no Parliament can bind its successor, confidence in Parliament is undermined when a retrograde move such as that being proposed is made. The treatment of the promise made way back in the early 1930sthat once the debt was covered there would be free runs through the Mersey tunnelsis to be regretted. Incidentally, the tunnel is very much part of the Merseyside economy. It is often said that we are all affected by it. We have a nasal accent and people ask why that it is sosome say it is because of the draught from the Mersey tunnel. The point is that no consideration was given to the case against maintaining tolls, presumably from now until kingdom come, irrespective of whether the tunnel is profitable or makes a loss.
	Thirdly, in its consultation Merseytravel asked:
	Should surplus toll income be used to cross-subsidise and improve local public transport services, benefiting the wider Merseyside community?
	Sixty seven per cent.a majority againsaid no.
	What is the point of spending public money on consultations if they are never acted upon or are never considered with any serious intent? If the MPTA is to have increased powers and freedoms to spend and charge, it must be made far more accountable. It can be argued, of course, that there is accountability because the MPTA is made up of councillors from all the boroughs on Merseyside. It is a very indirect form of accountability, however. It is very difficultalso, it is rather unusualfor constituents to raise MPTA matters with councillors because only a few members of each of the councils are MPTA members. That is a rather indirect way to keep in contact with the people of Merseyside. The MPTA must be accountable not only to the local people of Merseyside, but ultimately to the Secretary of State.
	There was once an all-party river crossing groupperhaps the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) remembers itand Eric Heffer, a Labour Member, was one of its leading lights. Many hon. Members believe that the day should come when no tolls are charged. I am opposed to road tolling. Indeed, it is an 18th century concept that goes back to the turnpike trusts, all of which were abolished by 1895, but here we are today debating tolls on a major traffic route that is important not only to Merseyside, but nationally. That is absurd.
	We should take our cue from what happens with other natural monopolies. In a 1998 Green Paper entitled A Fair Deal for Consumers, the Government recommendedand, indeed, later establisheda general duties diktat on the regulators, which was enshrined in the Utilities Act 2000. The regulators were to put the interests of consumers firstall consumers: industrial, business and domestic. None of that applies statutorily to the MPTA.
	When the Utilities Act 2000 was passed on to the statute book, it dealt with the activities of the gas and electricity industries. The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority was set up, and it can impose financial penalties on utility companies that are in breach of their statutory requirements. Nothing like that exists for the Mersey tunnels. The Secretary of State appointed three members of that authority. The Minister should consider what was done then and what could be done now to ensure real accountability and consultation by the MPTA.
	Under the Utilities Act 2000, the Competition Commission was given powers to act if it found that the gas and electricity authorities were not remedying adverse effects on consumers. Nothing like that exists for the Mersey tunnels.

George Howarth: I am anxious not to extend this debate and my hon. Friend's speech any longer than is absolutely necessary, but does he accepthe admitted as much earlierthat by no stretch of the imagination are the tunnels a monopoly?

Robert Wareing: I certainly reject the idea that the tunnels are not a monopoly; of course they are a monopoly. In fact, they are probably one of the most perfect examples of a monopoly that can be found in the British economy. Indeed, there are signs of competition in the gas and electricity industries, particularly since privatisation, so there can be competition between such companies. There is no competition with the MPTA. If my hon. Friend thinks that there is, perhaps he swims regularly across the River Mersey. There is no other way in which heavy traffic can cross the River Mersey at that point. Heavy traffic cannot cross unless its goes all the way round to Runcorn and Widnes to deliver goods or collect materials.

George Howarth: I hesitate to intervene again, and I promise to behave myself for the remainder of the debate, but to put the matter straight, as my hon. Friend rightly said some moments ago, there are ferries and, as he has now conceded, the Widnes to Runcorn bridge, which my constituents use far more regularly than the tunnels, as well as the rail system that runs under the river. I cannot see how, by any stretch of the imagination, that can constitute any kind of monopoly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) responds, I should direct him back to the scope of these amendments. We are not discussing the Bill as a whole. There may be an opportunity to do that on Third Reading, and it would be a pity if the hon. Gentleman stole his own thunder at this stage. I urge him to look at the terms of the amendments in concluding his remarks.

Robert Wareing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	My argument, of course, is that there should be bodies to represent the consumers of Merseyside. In one of the amendments I refer to a number of organisations, such as trade unions and the Liverpool and Wirral chambers of commerce, which should be consulted. What I am suggesting is that some form of consumers council, such as that set up under the Utilities Act 2000 for other utility services, could be a model for consultation on the Mersey tunnels. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) saysI am glad that he is going to behave now, which he usually does, but one never knows with himwe are considering a monopoly rather than an oligopoly, which exists in certain other utility services.
	I do not expect that we will come to a conclusion on this matter tonight. When the Bill goes to the other place, however, the Government should consider seriouslyI cannot understand how such a rational idea could be opposedincluding the question of consultation and a consumers body in a new Government amendment. It seems to me that there is no reason why both sides of our argument about the Bill should not come together on that. I hope that the Minister's reply will at least come close to what I have been recommending in all good faith.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have listened carefully to the arguments presented by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members this afternoon, and I cannot agree with them about the consultation. I have worked with the promoter of the Bill for a number of years, and I am satisfied that it executes the requirements of its work with regard to consultation with a diligence for which I have a great regard. I therefore ask my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

Ben Chapman: I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could elucidate that point by giving a couple of examples of how the Merseyside passenger transport authority has responded positively to points made in consultation.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I can understand my hon. Friend's desire to extend this debate for as long as possible, but I believe that all the points that have been raised with respect to consultation have already been covered.

Andrew Miller: Is my hon. Friend saying on behalf of the promoter of this Bill that people resident in Cheshire, outside the catchment zone of the five district councils that are shareholders, have no rights in consultation? Is she satisfied that that does not breach the statutory duty in respect of best value legislation?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I believe that the door to Merseytravel has always been open and that it is always responsive to reasoned arguments about improvements and the service available.

Christopher Chope: I am afraid that the contribution made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has left rather a nasty taste in the mouth. Does she really think that when summing up a serious debate in which many hon. Members from both sides of the House have participated, all she need do is assert that all the points relating to consultation have been covered, so that is the end of the argument? She does a disservice to the House because we have put pertinent points cogently and coherentlybut not extensivelyto the promoter of the Bill. In so far as she speaks for the promoter, we assumed that she absented herself from the Chamber for some of debate to take instructions from it so that she could give us responses.

Stephen Hesford: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the surprising reticence of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) mirrors exactly the instructions that she has probably been given by Merseytravel? Merseytravel does not want to say anything or engage in debate.

Christopher Chope: I do not know what instructions the hon. Lady received, but I am aware that she has strong views of her own. If she had received instructions with which she disagreed, I am sure that she would have spoken out. She has fearlessly spoken out on several issues in the HouseI agree with that. That is why her reticence when responding to points from the debate is so bizarre.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend think that that is even more extraordinary given that the withdrawal of the opposing petitions in Committee meant that there was no light shone on the matter? There was no clarification, investigation or probing, so it was extraordinary of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) to make no comment on the well reasoned amendments.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes the same point as me.
	I doubt very much whether the other place will allow the promoters of the Bill to get away with such an arrogant approach. The conventions that used to apply in this House still apply in the other place, so Members of the other place who respond to a debate actually deal with points that have been raised. Some Ministers and hon. Members in this House have not complied with that convention for some time. If Members of the other place make points that are not answered, they expect to be able to debate them at greater length on another occasion.

Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the point is not only that the conventions that used to apply here will apply when the Bill reaches the other place? The Government find it more difficult to get legislation through the other place than this House.

Christopher Chope: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point.
	The hon. Member for Crosby is not the only person who has refused to participate at length in the debate. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), has not said anything. That might be because the Liberal Democrats have a different policy on congestion charging in different parts of the country. London Liberal Democrats say that they are in favour of it, but we are not sure of the Liberal Democrat position on Merseyside. We know that the Liberal Democrats are against tolls for the Skye bridge, but perhaps that it because the leader of the party represents the constituency in which the bridge is situated.

George Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which he is trying to trivialise the debate only goes to prove the pointlessness of trying to engage him in debate?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman will have to judge whether he thinks that I am trivialising the debate. I am trying to be serious, and I have expressed my concern that we have not heard the view of the Liberal Democrats, although that is not unusual.
	It is appalling that the Government have not joined in the debate. Why has the Minister not spoken? The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a good contribution in which he laid down a number of challenges to the Government. Why is the Minister not earning his keep by responding?
	The explanatory memorandum says that the Bill will
	assist the Authority in implementing this Government's policies on integrated public transport facilities.
	Many of us think that that is a total misreading of the situation. Does the Minister believe that the Bill will assist the authority in implementing the Government's policies on integrated transport? Does it have the overt support of the Government, or are they neutral on it? The Government Whips have been determined to force the measure through. In such circumstances, it is even more despicable that the Minister is not prepared to stand up at the Dispatch Box and allow himself to be exposed to questions from his right hon. and hon. Friends who want to know where the Government stand.
	I do not usually get angry in the House, but the past few minutes of the debate have made me extremely cross. The suspicions of people in Merseyside, and on the Wirral peninsula in particular, who think that they are victims of a ghastly conspiracy to do them down and to tax them heavily for their use of an essential route to work are well founded. The behaviour of the promoter and the Minister bears that out.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby made excellent pertinent points. I hope that he will table parliamentary questions to his ministerial colleague to get some answers. Alternatively, perhaps he will complain to his Whips that it is not conventional for a Minister not to respond to points raised by a Labour Member. No one can say that we are short of time. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) spoke extensively in earlier debates and there was no chance for others to join in before the motion for closure was moved. Ironically, the Government were able to hide behind the closure and not explain themselves. That is not possible today because the debate has only been going on for just over an hour. The Minister has every opportunity to explain for the first time the Government's opinion of the Bill and the amendments, but he has manifestly declined so to do. That is typical of the Government's arrogance. If they and the sponsor are not prepared to listen to their own Members, all we can do is hope that they will be forced to change their attitude in another place.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) for contributing to the debate. He brings a special expertise because of his experience of serving on the Committee that discussed the Bill before it was withdrawn. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked some important questions that have not been answered. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was right to say that I did not make the most of the strong arguments that should be deployed on how the Bill is a taxing measure, which it is: it is a stealth taxa stealth congestion charge. It is clear that there is no intention to pay off the debt on the tunnels by using the proceeds of the tolls. The purpose is to try to raise extra charges to deter people from using the tunnels and to transfer money from tunnel users to other parts of Merseyside for various public sector projects. A number of hon. Members have referred to the fact, which is inherent to the debate, that the people of Merseyside will not get good value for money out of the tunnels.

John Pugh: rose

Hon. Members: Ah.

John Pugh: Well, in the interests of consistency I am required to draw something to the hon. Gentleman's attention. He said that the Bill's object is to deter people from using the tunnels, but the promoter hopes to have lots of money to spend on other causes. How can the Bill achieve both?

Christopher Chope: If that is the sum of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, I am sorry that he did not make a speech. That is exactly what is set out in the explanatory memorandum, and a number of us think that it contains inherent inconsistencies, including the one to which I just referred.
	The Bill's promoter has provided no clarity about the objectives. It says that, on the one hand, it wants to have the power to increase tunnel charges by the rate of inflation as a matter of convenience, and it wants to be able to pay off the debt. On the other, it says that the Bill will be extremely useful in assisting the authority in implementing the Government's policies on integrated public transport facilities. But it does not say how it will pay off the enormous overhanging debt that we know to be associated with the tunnels, and surely the first objective should be to use the tolls to meet the costs of the tunnels, rather than to cross-subsidise other public transport activity.
	This is a stealth tax, and it is part of the Government's congestion charging programme. The toll will be increased well beyond what is reasonable, and the tunnel users will not be able to avoid it. The cavalier way in which the Bill's promoter and sponsors have failed to respond to the debate is significant, and I hope that it will result in the sponsors losing the vote that I hope we will have on the amendment that I have tabled.

Frank Field: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Government Whips are in place for a coming Division, so the Government's fingerprints are all over the Bill, a tax-raising measure?

Christopher Chope: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and he does the House a service in pointing that out. There will be people on the Wirral, in his constituency of Birkenhead and elsewhere in Merseyside who find it quite enlightening to see how the Government operate.
	The Government are unwilling to come forward and openly justify the Bill, but they are determined to push it through the House against the wishes of many people on Merseyside, including those who were consulted about the measure and who overwhelmingly voted against it. I hope that the amendment will be carried. If it is not carried here, I hope that it will be carried in the other place.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 209.

Question accordingly negatived.

Stephen Hesford: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 6, line 27, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 42 on page 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 34, in page 7, line 45, leave out
	'or Section 92 (Further revision of tolls)'.

Stephen Hesford: Amendment No. 34 is consequential on amendment No. 33. Amendment No. 33 would remove existing section 92 of the County of Merseyside Act 1980, which the Bill re-enacts.
	We are trying to deal with overkill. The amendments would make the Bill honest. The measure is currently dishonest because it is a con perpetrated on the people of Merseyside, especially the people of the Wirralmy constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and, in a wider sense, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).
	However, we are considering a wider Merseyside issue. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was right to remind us of the consultation exercise. It made me recall the Mersey tunnels' current financial position. I am not talking about fantasy finance; I shall read out Merseytravel's comments on the Mersey tunnels' finances in the consultation document, which has already been mentioned. Paragraph 2.3 states:
	The Tunnels are currently breaking even financially, i.e. the toll income is sufficient to meet annual operating costs of about 12 million, debt (capital financing) charges of 13 million, and refurbishment (safety and renewal) costs of about 7 million. The debt charges stem from the use of borrowing to finance the cost of constructing the Wallasey Tunnel (44 million), and subsequent operating losses incurred between 1968 and 1992 (116 million). The current volume of debt outstanding is about 106 million, which is being repaid at the rate of about 4.5 million per annum together with interest charges of about 8.5 million.
	It is said that the Bill and the section that I am seeking to remove are before the House because those responsible for operating the Mersey tunnels need access to extra finance. The House has already debated at some length the reason for raising that extra money, not least in relation to the cross-subsidy for other purposes on the wider Merseyside transport front. Some of the extra money is said to be needed for refurbishment and safety work, but I am not entirely convinced by that argument. It is an easy argument to make, because it throws upon those who do not take it at face value the unpleasant suggestion that they are not interested in the safety of the tunnels. I reject that entirely. It would not be an honest or proper position for the promoter to take, and it may be that it does not do so.
	A group that has been formed in my constituency and elsewhere to look at the finances of the Mersey tunnels has carried out some research. I am grateful to the groupand in particular to Mr. McGoldrickfor furnishing me and my hon. Friends with certain information. On the question of safety, the group found that the Eurotest 2002 report rated the Wallasey tunnel the safest of those tested in Britain, and that the Birkenhead tunnel was the third safest. That could put to bed the idea that there needs to be access to extra funds, certainly for that purpose.

George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give the House some more information about the group that has provided him with that research? Specifically, will he tell us what its members' qualifications for making these assertions are?

Stephen Hesford: I do not think that it would be helpful for me to go down that particular road, attractive though the question is. Those on whose behalf my hon. Friend speaksif I may put it that wayknow very well who these people are, and he knows very well that they know that. They have had substantial correspondence with the group.

Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the principal qualification of the group's members for making these statements is that they are users of the tunnel and that, as such, they make representations to the passenger transport authority? Would it not be good ifin these circumstances, if in no othersthe authority were, for once, to listen?

Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. The principal qualification of the group's members is that they are users of the tunnels, and as usersand, indeed, as taxpayersthey have tried hard to seek basic information from Merseytravel so that they can understand the situation better and make a genuine and dispassionate observation of the finances of the operation. They found, however, that those responsible for keeping that information were not forthcoming; they said that it was like getting blood out of a stone. It is wrong of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) to ask what their qualifications are. They are simply users trying to understand the situation as best they can.

George Howarth: I am mystified as to why this is such a big secret. My hon. Friend says that I know who these people are, and he knows who they are, but no one else is to be given this information. Would it not be sensible, if my hon. Friend is praying in aid a group that has provided information, that he should tell us who its members are? He knows that these minutes will be read in another place and that people will expect to be told exactly what the qualifications of those providing that information are.

Stephen Hesford: The group calls itself the Mersey Tunnel Users Association, which answers my hon. Friend's question, a blind alley down which I am sure he did not take me purposely.
	Why do we need a twin-track approach? The operators of the Mersey tunnel can use the section 92 procedure to raise tolls, a matter that the House has discussed previously. Curiously, while asking for a further toll-raising measure, the operators are also seeking to use the old procedure. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, there will be a public inquiry on that soon.
	Current practice can deal with increasing tolls, but the Bill's promoter seeks to retain the section 92 powerI am seeking to remove itwhile having the new, more flexible power that can raise money more easily. I ask a simple question that the promoter has so far not even bothered to address; why does it need both?
	If the promoter is sure that the new system will provide flexibilitywith a 10p toll rise every three yearswithout a public inquiry, fine. I am against it having the new power, but why does it need the existing power as well? If the Bill becomes law and the promoter can raise the funds that it thinks it canbearing in mind that the tunnel, as I said, is breaking evenwhy does it need the fallback position? It adds insult to injury for it to have both.
	In an ideal world, I would want the Bill to go away, and that we left in place the current system, which is being used successfully to increase tolls at the moment. I suspect that my wish will not be granted, and the House must deal with the point about section 92.
	It is not as though the Secretary of Statehis assistance must be soughtafter having a public inquiry to raise money has ever disappointed anyone. When people went to the Secretary of State under the old system seeking the money to secure the finances of the tunnels, their request was always acceded to. It was never refused. Indeed, the point needs to be reiterated, so I do so. The tunnel tolls have never been denied under what I call the old, or the current, system. Clearly, it works well, because if it did not, the tolls would not be in financial equilibrium. Under existing legislation, the terms are broadly for the tunnel to break evento pay its way, so that eventually the running costs, the debt and other costs are paid off and the tunnels become free.
	Of course, there is another element of my objection to the re-enactment of section 92, which would provide for the current system and the new system. I look forward to a response, which we did not have in the previous debate[Interruption.] I hear a sotto voce indication that there might be a response this time, and I am pleased about that. I look forward to it, if it comes. It seems objectionable because I have not had an answer to the basic question, Why both? Is it because the Bill's promoter has a suspicion that the new system that it wants will somehow not be effective? Does it think that something will go wrong with it? If so, I would be interested to know what that might be.
	I am sure that the House would also want to know if it is passing a measure whose promoter believes that there is an inherent probability of something going wrong or an element of mismanagement. I do not mean purposeful mismanagement, but a problem inherent in the system. The system might throw up a set of circumstances that requires the promoter to use a fallback position to raise extra cash.
	In opting for the new fast-track procedure, as I call it, to raise money more easily, the promoter has criticised the current system as old-fashioned, cumbersome, dated and responsive to an era that has now gone. I believe that those criticisms still exist, so is it not strange that the promoter wants to keep such an archaic system? Why does it envisage that, at some as yet unspecified time and in some unspecified circumstancesthe promoter says that its fears are genuine, so they must bethe despised old-fashioned system will be used?
	The promoter calls the current system into question, but it remains on the statute book, even though for one purpose it hates it. It wants the House to believe that it is useless and works against the people of Merseyside and the Mersey tunnels in general, but it wants it to stay on the statute book to use as a fallback position, with all the problems that it acknowledges that it has. Those problems include requirements to publicise the matter in the newspapers, to go to the Secretary of State and to hold a public inquiry. That causes delays and means that the promoter does not get the money when it needs it.
	I have said that I do not understand why there are two parallel systems for raising money. The current, criticised system is the fallback position, and it takes a long time. What is the rationale for retaining it?
	I and my constituents could understand the Bill better if it contained one simple proposition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has dealt with elements of the Bill, such as insulation, so I shall not discuss them. My constituents might be more sympathetic if the Bill stated that we need a new system because the current one gets gummed up and does not work, and is an old-fashioned and expensive waste of time. That is a simple proposition that we could all understand, but that is not what we are faced with.
	Why do we need to keep section 92? That is my simple question. I do not understand why the Bill contains that provision.
	I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is listening with care to my speech. We have not heard from either the promoter or the Government about this matter. From the point of view of business management, the Government want the Bill to go through today, as this is the third or fourth time that it has been discussed on the Floor of the House. The Bill is like a bad penny that keeps coming back. The Government want it to get through, and they will use the heavy hand of whipping to ensure that that happens. The fact that the debate is not time limited means that the business will almost certainly go through in the manner that they envisage.
	I oppose the Bill and so do not find the Government's approach attractive, but there is more to it than that. I do not believe that the Government have not read the Bill and do not know what it is about. In fact, I know that that is not the case, as a delegation of which I was a member met the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), and talked about it face to face. The Government know what the Bill is about.
	I have addressed my propositions to the Bill's promoter and to the House in general. I hope that the House has some sympathy with what I have said, but I now address my comments to the Government.
	What is the Government's logic in this matter? The rules laid down in the original Act are currently being used by the Bill's promoter to raise the tunnel charges. In one way or another, those rules have been used successfully for about 70 years. What are the Government sanguine about, given that the Bill wants not just the new fast-track procedure but the retention of the current procedure as a back-up? If they are, in fact, not sanguine about the use of two parallel tax-raising measures, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us now.
	My hon. Friend the Minister remains steadfastly seated. It would be easy enough for him to reply to me in a few words. We are not happy about a twin-track procedure for raising money at the expense of my constituents, and we are not persuaded that there is any reason for it. As my hon. Friend is not tempted by my invitation, I must assumeas my constituents mustthat the Government are indeed sanguine about the forcing of the two tax-raising measures on them in circumstances that no one has yet explained. The purpose is not to refurbish the tunnels or to get the authority out of debt, because it is not in debt. It is not even to secure a more sensible way of raising tollsa fast-track approach. If that were the case, the old procedure would not be needed.
	What can my hon. Friend and the promoter point to that will go wrong? In what circumstances will the old system be used? Can someone please tell us what the fallback position is?
	As I hope the House appreciates, I am doing my best for my constituents. I have asked the promoter and the Government for answers, but for the moment there is a stony silence. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East will serve as official spokesman for the promoter, but he indicated, sotto voce, that he wished to speak. I shall sit down now, but I look forward to elucidation from someoneif not for my benefit, at least as a courtesy to the House.

George Howarth: I shall try to be brief.
	Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), I was reminded of a line from a song on The Beatles' Abbey Road. I quote from memory, but I think it ran, You never give me your pillow, you only issue your invitations. My hon. Friend seems to have issued invitations to everyone rather liberally in the last few moments.
	I think that my hon. Friend rather over-egged the pudding. He spoke at some length about the promoter, Merseytravel. I should emphasise that I represent my constituents, and do not directly represent the promoters.

Stephen Hesford: Will my hon. Friend give way?

George Howarth: I have not begun to develop my argument yet.
	My hon. Friend says, in effect, that the promoters of the Bill want to take a belt-and-braces approach; as well as the new powers that they seek, they want to reserve the power to continue to use the old system. That is the core of his argument, which I have managed to put in two minutes but which took him 30 minutes.
	The simple answer to my hon. Friend's question is that, for all intents and purposes, in all normal circumstances, the promoters intend to use the new system. They want the straightforward power to be able to increase the tunnel tolls in line with inflation, measured by the retail prices index. Whether the increase will be 10p every three years or some other figure will obviously depend on the rate of inflation. However, the promoters want a further option in case something unforeseen happens. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has any experience in public finance, but in every public finance system that I have dealt withwhether in local government or national Governmentprovision is always made for unforeseen circumstances. I cannot predict what they might be, but any civil engineering project could go wrong. The circumstances might not be within the control of those responsible for managing the project; for example, there could be an act of terrorism or some engineering fault that was not originally evident. There must be some way of dealing with such eventualities.
	The promoters have sensibly taken the view that the old arrangement, as my hon. Friend describes it, would be the fair way to deal with such circumstances. There would be a public inquiry. The authority would have to go back to central Government and justify why they wanted to exceed what they had asked for under the initial powers.

Tony McNulty: indicated assent.

George Howarth: I do not want to put words into the Government's mouth, but my hon. Friend is nodding in agreement. I may have saved him from the need to make a speech.
	The arrangements that I have described always apply in any public finance system. Unless my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West seeks only to make mischief, I do not know why he could not have figured that out for himself.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) has half-answered the question that I was about to put to the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). I, too, spotted the Minister nodding earlier, so that was helpful.
	When I added my name to the amendment, it was to enable me to probe the circumstances in which the promoters would make such an application. What are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might be minded to accede to them?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Miller: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall finish asking my questions and then I shall welcome her answers.
	I have made a particular examination of the reports prepared by the German automobile associationADACon the safety aspects. One can see that there could be exceptional expenditure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East described. He made a fair point. He also threw up other possibilities, though God forbid that there should be terrorism. I noticed, on a website, that the
	chairman of tunnel operators Merseytravel, says tolls will have to rise to meet the cost of the revamp
	that stems from the ADAC report, although as always in these matters, different figures are floating around.
	That led meI am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has been considering this, as she is an engineer by backgroundto look at some of the engineering issues that have cropped up in previous tunnel incidents. Some awful tragedies have taken place around the world. Thank goodnessand I say, well doneMerseytravel has avoided some of the awful incidents that we have seen.
	I looked at the ADAC report, at some work done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology examining damage to concrete walls in the event of fires, and at an extraordinarily detailed report entitled, The Prevention and Control of Highway Tunnel Fires published in the United States about three years ago, which went through very detailed evidence surrounding a range of fire situations, and created models of potential fire situations that thus far had not occurred in real life. It is a scary report.
	The single question that I should like answered is, am I right that the promoters envisage clause 92 being applied only in circumstances relating to safety? If there are any other circumstances, I want to know; it is a fair question to ask. If it is safety only, I am for keeping clause 92 as it stands. If it is broader and the promoters want to leave it fairly vague, that is not good enough.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make this intervention. He, like me, will have heard announcements

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady intervening on the hon. Gentleman?

Andrew Miller: I have finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, the hon. Lady is actually making a speech.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Given that I am on my feet, perhaps I can address the comment that has just been made. I believe that the exceptional circumstances are unforeseen but would be more than likely to include safety matters.
	My hon. Friends will have heard today that the EU intends to formulate a directive on all manufactured chemical products and to determine their impact on members of the public. I was working in the chemical industry when the EU had its first go at that in the mid-1980s. Catastrophic shock waves travelled through the chemical industry as people began to consider the consequences of the general products that had already been produced for the public who were purchasing them. At the time, products that had been on the market for 20 years were exempted from that consideration. It is now proposed to bring all products into the EU directive, so all companies providing products must be able to provide technical appraisals and toxicity appraisals to indicate the impact of those products on the population. I do not know the likely consequences, but I can well imagine that some products that have been used in the construction of the tunnels and other structures might well have an impact on the population that we currently do not assess.

Andrew Miller: I am grateful; that is helpful.
	In what circumstances might the clause be used other than to deal with emergency major engineering works that stem from things like the safety case? If there are no other circumstances, that is fine and the provision ought to remain in the Bill. If there are other circumstances, beyond safety, the House is entitled to know of them.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I cannot foresee any other circumstances in which those powers would need to be used. However, I have worked for 20 years in an industry where unforeseen incidents do unfortunately happen. One still has to have provisions and arrangements that accommodate those exceptional circumstances. If one does not have them in place, one is criticised by the public for failing to do so.

Andrew Miller: I agree entirely that there needs to be a contingency arrangement. It is particularly important in the context of safetythe safety of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend when travelling through the tunnel and that of the people who work in it. That is a mission critical. Is she saying that those contingency arrangements would extend to the inability of the passenger transport authority to balance its books on some other service?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me an opportunity to clarify the situation. If there were exceptional circumstances, regardless of how they were arrived at, the matter would be referred to a public inquiry. At that point, I believe that the merits of the arguments put forward to substantiate an increase would be roundly discussed. We cannot prejudge what those unforeseen circumstances might be, but in the case of managerial neglect, huge criticisms would be made of the sponsor and justifiably so. I suspect that they would be told to look for alternative means to balance budgets.

Stephen Hesford: This has been a curious little debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was expansiveif he gets his way, it will also be expensive for my constituents. He said that if one knows something about public finances, one always needs a fall-back position. I do not believe that that is an accurate statement of general public finance, but it appeared to be his point.
	I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). It is my constituents who are more likely to have to pay for those contingencies. Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear in the general debate. When trying to understand what might be the nature of the unforeseen circumstances, there is no substitute for considering what has happened. One of the tunnels has been in existence for 70 years and the other since 1968. None of those unforeseen safety problems has arisen. Perhaps, I did not make it sufficiently clear that, according to my information, one of the tunnels is registered as the safest and the other as the third safest in the country.
	I am profoundly not persuaded by the safety argument. It is suggested that some such situation may arise. Do the promoters not have something called insurance? Are they not insured for such things? Is not insurance designed to insure against unforeseen things? That is a rhetorical question, because the insurance industry exists for that purpose.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend has a way with words: to describe my speech, which was four minutes long, as expansive, having spoken for 28 minutes himself, seems an odd use of the English language. For the sake of the record, given the argument that he is now using, can he tell me the last time he was able to insure against a terrorist disaster?

Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but he knows, as I do, that those parts of the country that suffer from terrorist activity receive Government fundingfor example, when Manchester was rebuiltso I am afraid that he makes a very bad point.

George Howarth: rose

Stephen Hesford: No. My hon. Friend has had his chance. He makes a seriously bad point because the idea that some terrorist atrocity would be paid for by such a procedure is nonsense.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend argued, until I intervened, that insurance could cover all contingencies. When it was pointed out that it cannot, he changed his argument. He cannot have it both ways.

Stephen Hesford: Terrorism will not be paid for by such a procedure. When I made that point, my hon. Friend nodded because it is an obvious point. Let us not overplay this. Let us not be stupid about the idea that there is a prospect of terrorism in the Mersey tunnels; there is not. Let us not go too far down that road.

George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Hesford: No.
	I described this as a curious little debate because of the frequent references to the unforeseen nature of the circumstances. I have dealt with the idea that people can insure against risk. I have dealt with the idea of terrorism. When my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) was asked whether there were any other circumstances, the answer was no. There are no other circumstances in which she could envisage the procedure being used. Therefore, in my submissionwhether the House agrees with me I know notI have heard nothing to persuade me that clause 92 needs to stay in the Bill.
	Given the way the debate has been organisedthat has been aired alreadyI do not intend to press amendments Nos. 33 and 34 to the vote tonight. Those arguments will go to another place, as has been indicated. I am sure that those in the other place will read with interest the report of this curious little debate, and I hope that their lordships will have some sympathy with my argument about clause 92. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2
	  
	Further Amendment of the 1980 Act

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 24, leave out 'in the vicinity of' and insert 'adjacent to.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 21, in page 9, line 34, leave out
	'Except when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances.'.

Christopher Chope: These are, by nature, probing amendments, and I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) realises that the essence of a probing amendment is that an hon. Member asks questions in the hope that some answers will be forthcoming.

Bob Spink: Fat chance.

Christopher Chope: As my hon. Friend says, on the basis of experience so far today, there is a fat chance of that. I hope that there is a better chance than that, because almost everyone involved with the Bill is agreed that its best part is the proposal to provide insulation. The explanatory memorandum says that the fourth purpose is
	to allow the Authority to undertake and finance noise insulation work to properties adjacent to the Kingsway Tunnel's approach roads.
	I therefore cannot understand why the Bill uses not the words adjacent to, but the expression in the vicinity of. I wonder whether the hon. Lady, as the Bill's sponsor, could explainit does not have to be at great lengthwhy the definition in the explanatory memorandum seems to be narrower than the Bill; or perhaps it is not narrower. I tabled amendment No. 20 to ensure consistency between the explanatory memorandum and the Bill.
	I hope that the hon. Lady can also respond to amendment No. 21, which I also tabled. It deals with the exceptions where noise insulation works and grants cannot be carried out. My amendment would remove the qualification from the beginning of proposed new section 109A(4) of schedule 2, which says:
	Except when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section.
	I should have thought that that was obvious and need not be stated in the Bill.
	I am conscious of the fact that the hon. Lady is now taking instructions on that. The amendments were tabled probably the best part of four or five months ago, so I am surprised that, even after that time, Merseytravel's resources could not be used to communicate with me directly or to speculate on why I had tabled them. At least the hon. Lady is now taking instructions, for which I am grateful.
	Why does proposed subsection (4) include the expression
	when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section?
	It goes on to say:
	or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances.
	Using such words gives a subjective veto the people who provide those grants, so could the hon. Lady give us one or two examples of where such work might be
	otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances.
	If she cannot explain that, perhaps she will accept amendment No. 21, which would remove that part of schedule 2.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I shall respond to the two probing amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). With regard to the words used, he is right to note that there is a difference between the words vicinity and adjacent, but, of course, vicinity can mean adjacent. In drafting the Bill, every care has been taken to ensure that the people, communities and properties that need to be afforded noise insulation receive that insulation, and they will do so because they are in the vicinity of or in proximity to the noise source.

Bob Spink: In Committee, hon. Members asked for maps that would identify the houses that might benefit from the insulation work. Although some maps were available, it was not clear which houses would be included and which would not and how the phrase vicinity of would be defined. It could be defined in a number of ways. Has any map been produced? Have those houses been identified?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that extensive legislation exists with regard to noise, the emission of noise and tolerable levels of noise. I have utter confidence that Merseytravel will seek to ensure that those properties that are substantially disturbed by noise receive the protection for which my hon. Friends have argued.
	The second probing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) introduces the words:
	Except when to do so would be inconsistent . . . or . . . inappropriate in the circumstances.
	We can all envisage circumstances in which it might not be possible to introduce noise insulation. For obvious reasons, the space might not be availablenoise insulation is not just a matter of a few millimetres of board adhered to property. Appropriate noise insulation to a good standard today will invariably mean a structure that needs a base on which to stand and extensive panels, and I am not sureI do not know every property to which the provision may offer protectionwhether all those properties would be able to accommodate that, or, importantly, whether the solution offered to address the problem will be wanted. I have had noise insulation installed in my constituency and the response from various constituents to what was offered varied enormously. There were those who were prepared to accept significant structures that did the job of preventing noise and others who said, Thank you, but I prefer to leave things as they are.

Christopher Chope: Surely the point that the hon. Lady has just made is dealt with in proposed new subsection (3).

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Yes, it has been addressed in proposed new subsection (3), but I am trying to illustrate that the Bill seeks to accommodate factors that cannot be foreseen at the time, and that is right and proper. Frequently, circumstances arise that could not have been predicted, but the provision would accommodate such an event.

Christopher Chope: Well, the hon. Lady has not explained why the wording in the explanatory memorandum refers to properties adjacent to the Kingsway tunnel, whereas the wording in schedule 2 refers to properties
	in the vicinity of the approaches to the Kingsway Tunnel.
	She has not explained the conflict between those two. If we were talking about
	the vicinity of the approaches,
	why was that not included in the explanatory memorandum? I hear what she says, however. No doubt some intolerant Labour Members will think that this discussion is rather pedantic, but the essence of scrutiny is to ask such questions when there are inconsistencies between what is said in the explanatory memorandum and what is contained in the wording of the Bill.
	The hon. Lady has not dealt with the point about not including in legislation what is obviousclearly, if there is already an inconsistency with the provisions of the section, grants cannot be made. The important point relates to exceptions to the circumstances in which the authorities shall determine the eligibility for noise insulation work. That is an issue of eligibility. Is she saying that the essence of eligibility is that it is dependent on whether insulation work can be fitted into the particular dwelling? I find that hard to comprehend. She then said that the nature and extent of the work should be determined by the authority, which would normally take into the account the points that she has made. Under proposed new subsection (4), however, the authority should not look at the nature and extent of such works if it was otherwise inappropriate to do so. The wording does not therefore seem to deal with the situation that she describes.
	I am therefore a little suspicious. It seems to me that such a catch-all phrase could result in people who think that they will benefit from noise insulation works finding out in due course that they will not benefit, and that the authority will rely on the small print in the schedule. As the noise insulation work seems to be the most sensible part of the Billit may be changed in the other placeit is regrettable that the wording seems to suggest that there may be scope for monkey business on the part of its promoter.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention to execute any monkey business, to use his words. I am convinced that Merseytravel will welcome the opportunity to address what is a long-standing issue for many residents in and around the tunnels. I also know, as someone who has been involved in installations of all sorts, in many different circumstances, that occasionally there are circumstances that preclude one from doing what one wants. For example, I might ask what opportunity exists to do something for properties that are in the immediate vicinity of the Mersey tunnels, are on a precipice and exist right on the edge of an area. I do not know exactly what the circumstances are, but the geographical or geological nature of the area might preclude conventional noise insulation being used. I am sure that, in those circumstances, the Bill's promoter would look creatively at other solutions to addressing that problem. There may be trees that have preservation

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will have to content herself with one example.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for such a full explanation in her intervention. All that I can say is that it might be appropriaterather than inappropriateto consider this issue in more detail in the other place. It seems oddthis is not a criticism of the hon. Lady, as she does not get paid anything extra for doing thisthat the Bill's promoter, who is paid large sums of money, has not been able to supply fuller instructions to her for dealing with these amendments, notice of which was given months ago.

Tony McNulty: I simply want to say that perhaps the hon. Gentleman's first amendment should be pursued in another place. It would worry me more if a narrower definition were in the Bill rather than in the explanatory memorandum. I take his point, however, that there should be consistency between the two. That should be explored. My only other small point on the second amendment is that, if we turn to the next page of the Bill, it needs to be seen in the context of empowering the authority to carry out such works under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. The inconsistencies with this section and the words inappropriate in the circumstances all relate back to the noise regulations, and not to whether the authority should do the work or otherwise.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for getting to his feet and participating in the debate, and for recognising, certainly in relation to the first amendment, that there may be a point worth considering further in future. We are making progress, albeit right at the end of the Report stage. In the light of the Minister's words, it might be in the spirit of the occasion if I were to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It is with much relief that I speak on Third Reading. I am reminded that it took God only seven days to create the Earth, and my constant inadequacy is borne out by the fact that it has taken many hundreds of days to get the Bill through the House thus far.
	I am immensely grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in the Bill's progress, and especially the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who chaired the Committee on Unopposed Bills. I am also grateful for the work of the promoter and the support that it has given to me.
	The essence of the Bill will bring a problem that has existed for a long time to a head, because obtaining rate increases for the tunnels on Merseyside has been a slow and expensive process. I hope that the Bill will receive support in the other place because it will save the promoter a lot of time and money. The promoter intends to continue to manage the tunnels effectively and efficiently.
	I suppose that I must acknowledge the fact that the Bill has been divisive in our region and that some hon. Members have supported it fully while others have not. However, I hope that we have reached an understanding and that we can respect each other's views. I thank the House for its indulgence.

John Pugh: Of course, this debate is the major political event of the day, and I shall be the first person to say that there is now light at the end of the tunnel. The passage of the Bill has been an absolute marathon. Hours have been spent on it and at times the process has been like pulling teeth, although I think that pulling teeth is a great deal quicker. The Bill's opponents have given us an impression of how arduous and lengthy the process to get a toll increase under the correct procedure must be, if robust opposition exists. Everything that can be said about the Mersey Tunnels Bill has been said in the House of Commons, although I suspect that it is likely to be repeated in the House of Lords.
	In essence, the Bill puts in place a rational method of fixing tolls. It is linked to a forward-looking transport and environmental policy, and it promises no penal costs. When I went through the tunnel the other day, I was surprised that it cost only 1.20it was an excellent ride, I have to say. If one compares that charge with the tax on my petrol, it does not form a significant element of my transport budget.

Stephen Hesford: With respect to the hon. Gentleman and on behalf of my constituents, I resent his sentiments. He does not use the tunnels every day, but my constituents do. The tolls represent significant costs for them, but he speaks in favour of heaping more costs on them.

John Pugh: I said that if one compares the cost of the tolls with the taxation that the hon. Gentleman's Government impose on his constituents' petrol, it represents a small element of their travel costs, which is a slightly different point.

Ben Chapman: The cost might be a small factor in that respect but it is a large factor when one considers Merseyside's economy. To the best of my knowledge, our conurbation is the only one with a major toll route. Although the toll is only 1.20 for a car, the toll for a lorry is in the order of 8. That represents a serious taxation on our economy and creates a disincentive for people to invest in the area. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is wrong to try to trivialise that?

John Pugh: I am not trivialising any cost on industry, but I do not think that other hon. Members or I have heard people saying that they will not invest in the area because there is a toll on the Mersey tunnels. The tolls have existed for years. Labour Members who oppose the Bill do not wish to wipe the tolls away but argue for an arcane system of fixing them.

Ben Chapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Pugh: I shall continue, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
	The Bill incorporates safeguards against high penal tolls. Furthermorethis is the key point for many Merseyside Members who support the Billit will abolish for ever the prospect of council tax payers having to subsidise the tunnels, which they have done and could otherwise easily do again.
	Three arguments of substance have been made throughout the Bill's passage. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) argues that it represents a betrayal of some kind because it has been agreed from time immemorial that the tunnels will eventually be free to use. However, we cannot be bound by the decisions of our ancestors, and no one expects us to. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) argues that the Bill will lead to damage to the local economy appearing on the horizon because of the prospect of unreasonably high charges. However, to be fair, many peopleindividual travellers, if not those driving lorrieshave alternatives to the tunnels because they could use the excellent Trio system or ferries. In any case, the Bill rules out the prospect of high toll increases because if the suggested increase were above the retail prices indexan increase in line with the RPI is not unreasonablethe matter would go to the Government and the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Minister would say that no Secretary of State would impose charges on Merseyside that would be penal and damaging to its economy.
	The third argument that has been put capably by several hon. Members is that the Bill will create a system of cross-subsidy. I accept that, but I do not think that any hon. Member who supports that argument would extend its principle throughout the economy. They do not argue that all money raised from road tax or fuel duty by the Government should be put directly into roads. Their position is not consistent, so the argument is entirely ad hoc.

Frank Field: We have been trying to make the point that if there is unfairness in the tax system as well as fairness, that operates universally throughout the economy. We are insistent that it is unfair for some people in Merseyside to be taxed at a higher rate than others because of where they live. We object to the selective nature of the tax.

John Pugh: I accept that that is a refinement of the argument and a perfectly defensible response to what I said. However, few hon. Members would argue that cross-subsidy should not apply at any time because it must be appropriate in some circumstances.
	There is no Liberal Democrat line on the Bill. I am speaking for myself and Liberal Democrats will agree with me only if they think that what I say is correct. The three substantial arguments that have been made have been debated at almost interminable length.

Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no Liberal Democrat line on the Bill but, with respect, there is. Like him, I have sat through all our debates. I have watched the way in which his senior colleagues have come out of the woodwork to go through the Lobby to vote at his behest. There is a Liberal Democrat line on the Bill.

John Pugh: That was entirely due to my persuasive talents rather than any whipping. There are no good arguments against the Bill, so we should support it.

Frank Field: I hope that many parts of the Bill will be supported in the other place. There is one aspect, however, to which I object most strongly, and all my contributions have centred on that single point. It is outrageous that Merseytravel should try to get a Bill through this House, which will tax my constituents and those of other hon. Members in the Wirral and those areas around the tunnel entrance in Liverpool, so that it can finance travel arrangements for people in the wider region of Merseyside. It is unfair and should not be part of the Bill. I hope that it is removed in the other place.
	Government support and whipping power made it inevitable that the Bill will succeed in this place. I hope that the promoters realise, however, that it will not get through the other place if they continue to display the same arrogance. They have been wholly unprepared to meet the main objections. If the Bill goes through unamended in the other place, it will be a tax on the residents of Wirral and the inner areas of Liverpool. If that part is struck out, we will all be able to welcome the remainder passing on to the statute book.

Bob Spink: Except for the noise reduction measures, the Bill is thoroughly bad. It betrays the public and dishonours the House. It denies its original intention, which was clearly set out in the Bill and cannot be cast aside, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) attempted to do. It creates a toll and motoring tax precedent that is unhelpful. There is no doubt that it is a tax-raising measure. That is why the Government adopted it. It is essentially a Government, not a private, Bill.
	Indeed, this is a tax-raising measure of the worst kinda stealth tax. There are four aspects to that. First, it is an indiscriminate tax on jobs in the area. Secondly, it is a regressive tax. Thirdly, there is no representation of the majority of the people who are being taxed and, as such, we should follow the time-honoured principle that there should be no taxation. Fourthly, there is no means of renewing the tax by bringing it back to the House for further consideration. Once given, the tax will exist for ever, unlike taxes imposed by the Chancellor who must renew his taxation policy every year by going through us, the people's representatives. The tax created by the Bill will not be controlled in that way and will not be scrutinised in future.
	It is a peculiar tax. Although it is to be gathered from a specific activity, it will be applied generally to displace the general taxation that should be used to develop transport policy in the area. It will hit motorists who are already paying 500 a year to use the tunnel daily just so that they can travel within the area in which they live, work and commute. That will damage the local economy.
	As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) eloquently said, this so-called private Bill has been taken through the House with great arrogance. A shady and deplorable methodology was used, starting with the withdrawal of the petition without notice, which denied us proper scrutiny. We did not have the ability to shine a light on which houses would, and which houses would not, benefit from the noise reduction. Not many houses are involved in the scheme, which covers only a small area. The promoters could easily have provided a map showing which houses were covered by it. That would have enabled people outside the scheme who would not benefit to get their representatives to explain to the House why they should be inside it. That proper debate, however, was denied when the petition was withdrawn.
	Debate was prevented, so we could not probe the Bill's contents and improve it. The way in which the Government have adopted it is deplorable. They have ridden roughshod over the House's fine traditions. I hope that the Lords will severely amend it or throw it out.

Ben Chapman: As colleagues have said, the Bill will now move forward to another place because it has Government support. We were aware that the Government had abandoned their traditional stance of neutrality some time ago, but we have moved from covert, whispered whipping of the payroll vote to overt organisation of tonight's proceedings in order to get the Bill through the House.
	The private Bill and the mechanisms behind it are, as some have said, by nature intended for a private or non-governmental organisation to obtain its ends for its general benefit. It is not Government business, and that fact places the onus increasingly on this Chamber to subject it to the utmost scrutiny to ensure that the general public are best served by its passage.
	As a private Bill is not drafted by a Department, as would be the case with a Government Bill, and it does not draw on the skills of parliamentary draftsmen, a number of checks and balances, whether implicit or explicit, need to be inbuilt into any scrutiny process. Where those do not exist or, as in this case, are removed, the public, our constituents, are not being properly served by those whom they elect to represent their interests. The power of delay and repeated scrutiny is an example of such a check, but when we are faced with the juggernaut that is the combination of Merseytravel and Government support, it is difficult to see how we can resist.
	The Merseyside passenger transport authority has the resources and the ability to canvass far and wide, pulling strings and exploiting contacts to attain its ends. It has exploited its contacts and, in some circumstances I am afraid, it has resorted to bullying, not least of the Mersey Tunnel Users Association, and legal or quasi-legal action. That is a doubtful use of public funds, but for the Government also to conspire to disempower an elected Member from representing his or her constituents in this manner is entirely deplorable.
	The Bill has not received anything like the degree of scrutiny to which it should be subject, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made that point very eloquently. He also raised the issue of the abortive Opposed Private Bill Committee. I will not restate his points, but the fact is that the rug was unceremoniously pulled out from under the Committee's feet. Grave concerns about the Bill remained after what was in effect, or at least had the appearance of, backroom intrigue. That is a damning indictment of the process on which our constituents rely to be served in the best possible manner. To all intents and purposes, they have been disfranchised, such is the extent to which the opposition to the Bill has been hamstrung, not least this evening.
	What is done is done, however, but while disregarding the manner in which the Bill will depart this House, I cannot let it leave for another place without commenting on its terms. This is a deplorable Bill. It will provide the PTA with, in effect, an arbitrary power to raise tolls regardless of circumstances, except for the retail prices index. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said that that will be an effective control, but apart from the fact that there is very little relationship between the needs of the tunnel and the RPI, I must point out that the RPI need not always be at its current level. We could see the poor old tunnel user being charged a massive amount simply on the basis of the RPI.
	The PTA will be able to impose increases without any need to justify its reasons for so doing and, as hon. Members have said, that is a privilege that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer would very much like. I am sure, too, that such a power would be far safer in his hands. In my view, Merseytravel is largely unaccountable; it is not directly elected and it is often profligate.
	I might feel slightly more comfortable about this enterprise if the Bill contained an efficiency mechanism, but it does not. It strikes me that when council tax rises, for example, are under scrutiny because they are so high, we should focus our attention on increases to which authorities such as this one have contributed and their claims on the council tax payer.
	There is little or nothing to hold the Mersey PTA or other PTAs to account; there is no real requirement for them to justify their actions, and there is no direct method by which the general public can remove them from power. Although the PTA does not quite match up to the generally accepted idea of a quango, as its members are elected councillors, its position in the system of government opens it to many of the criticisms often lodged at quangos. PTAs are not effectively responsible to the electorate; their functions sit uneasily with the district council in their area, and they have a number of inherent flaws.
	In this instance, the PTA says that it needs the money that will be raised by the Bill, despite the fact that its own projected figures indicate quite the opposite. There is no need for the money at all. It reeks of insincerity to claim that the extra money that will be generated is needed to secure the safety of the tunnels for future generations. If there were specific safety projects that Merseytravel thought necessary, it could apply for toll increases by following the public inquiry route. It certainly does not need the belt-and-braces mechanism that we have heard about.
	The real intention of the MPTA in introducing the measure is betrayed by its determination to hold on to the toll increases and the mechanism by which they are executed, even after the standing debt on the tunnels is paid off. It is determined to rake the shallow depths of the tunnel user's pockets, not to make better provision for the tunnels but to finance projects, some of which are speculative. That breaks the promise, as has been said, of countless years' standing to the people of Merseyside that toll levels would one day be based purely on the amount required for the tunnels to be self-sufficient.
	I have no objection whatsoever to Merseytravel getting its tramway system, but I object to the tunnel user paying for it. Tram systems have a propensity for going wrong, so I object to the fact that all the people of Merseyside may have to face the consequences. The MPTA's attempts to bolster its argument by speculating that toll rises are necessary to deter commuters from using the tunnels, while arguing in the Opposed Private Bill Committee that it needs to raise tolls in case there is a drop in tunnel patronage, is an example of both sides of the same coin being deployed at the same time. Tunnel usage is largely inelastic and, despite many toll increases, has stayed steady. People have no alternativethe tunnels, as has been said, are their only travel option. Much as one would welcome a further Mersey crossing, it would have little effect on tunnel usage.
	Environmental reasons for increasing the tolls have been cited. It is said that the drop in traffic that would supposedly result from regular toll increases would have a positive effect on the environment, as fuel emissions would decrease. That would be true if there were a significant drop, but as matters stand it is a worthless argument. If Merseytravel had serious concerns about the environment it would have considered taking a proactive stance by, for example, offering a schedule of charges under which a not insubstantial discount is offered to vehicles that run on environmentally friendly fuel. However, no such proposals have been made. That is only one optionI am sure that there are many others.
	The measure would have a highly deleterious, if not immediately visible, effect on the Merseyside economy, and would seriously inhibit investment. Of course, I welcome the soundproofing proposals for areas at the Wallasey end of the tunnel, and have never objected to the provisions dealing with that in the Bill. However, I greatly regret the fact that that necessary work has been delayed as a result of Merseytravel's determination to push through the more egregious parts of the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Southport said that we were coming to the end of a marathon. It has been a marathon examination but, even so, the Bill has not received the scrutiny that it deserves. It is a bad Bill which is unfair, unwarranted and unwanted. It will have repercussions for the doctrine of taxation without representation and its economic repercussions will spread far beyond Merseyside. The tunnels are not a cash cow to be milked for the benefit of pet projects. If increases are to be introduced, we need a drive for efficiency rather than profitability. We need proper consultation, and it must be taken into account and listened to. Increases require justification, and users, instead of experiencing hindrance, as they appear to have done with the MPTA, should have an input in the process. There must be some right of recourse to examination and scrutiny.
	Large sums of money have already been spent in getting the Bill to this stage, but it is still more about raising money and featherbedding than about need. I can only hope that the occupants of another place will see it for what it is; in so doing, they will certainly have my support and encouragement.

George Howarth: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her good temper and patience in bringing the matter this far. She has had to put up with quite a bit, and has done so stoically. I also congratulate the promoter of the Bill on sticking with it, dealing with the many problems that have arisen and being patient with those of us who supported that promoter and asked a great deal from it in terms of information.
	To a Merseyside Member of Parliament, it has been an unpleasant experience to have to disagree with colleagues. I specifically highlight my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am in agreement with them on almost every other occasion, and respect them highly.
	It has to be said, though, that the arguments presented against the Bill at this late stage are either fatuous or specious. Let me give a couple of illustrations. Early on in the proceedings, we were treated to the unedifying spectacle of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) invoking the cry of the American revolutionaries, No taxation without representation! I shall forgo the obvious temptation to ask why the Member from Castle Point in Essex is criticising a measure that specifically affects voters and users of the tunnel on Merseyside, because he is entitled so to do.

Bob Spink: I was asked to chair the private Bill proceedings, so I was witness to the disgraceful conduct of the petition being withdrawn.

George Howarth: I am well aware of the role that the hon. Gentleman played. My point is that he invoked the cry, No taxation without representation, while representing a seat in Essex, yet it is my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Wirral who are affected by the Bill. It was a fatuous argument in any event, because, if he remembers his history aright, that was the cry of locals saying that the centre cannot decide what they have to pay. The hon. Gentleman has got his argument upside down. We are arguing that this matter should be determined locally, not by central Government, as is the case at the moment.
	Then we come to the specious. As I say, I have great respect for my hon. Friends, but they keep saying that this is a tax. I do not intend, nor would it be appropriate, for me to go into lengthy discussions about the definition of a tax, but any reasonable definition that I have ever heard does not cover a tunnel toll. My hon. Friends are describing what is effectively a commercial transaction on which many people completely depend. That is a far cry from a tax. The kernel of my argument is this: we are trying to achieve a system whereby the finances of the tunnel are determined locally by the proper authorities through a limited power that enables them to increase tolls only by the retail prices indexin other words, by the rate of inflation. My hon. Friends repeatedly fail to mention what happens when costs increase and the tunnel is not breaking evenI accept that it is nowor not making a small profit. In those circumstances, my constituents, few of whom use the tunnel, have to pay the difference as council tax payers. It has happened in the past and it could happen in future.
	The position is even worse. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West also have to pick up the bill. Moreover, the majority of their constituents, who do not use the tunnel regularly, will have to pay the bill in the circumstances that I described. I do not understand why that was not grasped earlier in our proceedings.

Joe Benton: My hon. Friend's comments are accuratethe preparations for next year's council tax prove his point. Perhaps he would like to comment on that.

George Howarth: As my hon. Friend knows, I greatly value his friendship and wisdom. His wisdom shines through yet again.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) represents everything that we know about the modern Conservative party. Although he has occasionally criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby for inaccuracyshe has been accurate at all timeshe generally takes up everyone's cry. If an hon. Member cries, This is taxation, the hon. Gentleman takes it up. If another hon. Member says, No taxation without representation, he does not think about or analyse the statement, he simply takes up the cry. Although I have much respect for some of the arguments that have been presented during the Bill's passage, the hon. Gentleman is pathetic.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) has said most of what I wanted to say so I shall be brief. I have a great regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). We are old friends from many years backwe negotiated matters on both sides of the river that affected airports; we considered the Labour party's manifesto for the 1987 election and more successful manifestos in recent years. However, we fall out on the subject of our debate because of his point about the funding arrangements that prevail.
	My constituents regularly use a sub-regional transport infrastructure, which is a mish-mash, owned and managed by different agencies. The missing link is an overall regional strategy to manage transport and make the case, about which my hon. Friend and I agree, for a further Mersey crossing. That needs to be incorporated in a strategic review of the area's transport needs.
	I shall reiterate briefly my constituents' principal complaints. Whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, they have to use the tunnel, as he admitted. They have little choice about that. They contribute significantly to the wealth of the region, and therefore have a right to be consulted. That right is currently being denied them, and I urge the promoter of the Bill to consider that as it goes on its way through to the other place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South put forward some interesting arguments on the environmental issues. In relation to the London congestion charge, I drive a Vauxhall Vectra, which was made in my constituency, and it runs on liquefied petroleum gas. It is therefore exempt from the charge. There are powerful arguments for introducing similar measures in relation to electric or LPG-powered vehicles in other urban centres, particularly where levies are currently involved. Many similar issues also need to be examined.
	Regarding the debate on section 92, I half got the hint from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), but when the Bill is down at the other end of the Corridor, I hope that their lordships will look carefully at the use of that section and seek to amend the Bill to incorporate conditions on the section's application. It is too loosely drawn at present.
	I echo the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South. I too am very disappointed that the Bill has got this far, and I hope that it will be substantially amended at the other end of the Corridor, so that we end up with a rational structure that will benefit all the people of the region in which we live, and not just those who are governed on one side of an artificial boundary or the other.

Stephen Hesford: My closing remarks are designed for the other place. I want to put it on the record that there was an earlier attempt to introduce a Bill. That Bill failed to come before the House and was then abandoned. I would like their lordships to consider, in the context of the second Bill, that the first Bill tried to privatise the management. The reason for doing that was to bring an element of efficiency to the running of the tunnels. I am pleased that that was abandoned, but we then had the second Bill.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) that this is a bad Bill. It is badly thought out, and a fig leaf in terms of the possibility of bad management in the future. No efficiency mechanism has been built into the Bill in relation to toll-raising powers, and my constituents find that very worrying. I should like to adopt a few of the words that my hon. Friend used, which are central to the argument. The Bill is undoubtedly designed to be a cash cow, in all circumstances and for all time. Again, my constituents will suffer as a result of that. My hon. Friend also mentioned feather-bedding, and I agree with the point that he made about that. I ask the other place to think about that issue. There should be no feather-bedding. The question of efficiency should be addressed, but the Bill does not address the issue of efficient tunnels run for their users by an efficient management.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned clause 92, about which I want to say a few words to the other place. The retention of the section in the Bill as a fallback position is wholly unnecessary. In the previous 70 years, there was only one form of fundraisingoutlined in clause 92and there was no fallback position. The tunnels never needed one for any purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) could not think of one example of where the fallback position would be used. There was a curious debate about terrorism, which, frankly, was nonsense. Clause 92 is in the Bill because of feather-bedding.
	There has not been an honest debate in the House, although that is not for want of trying on our part. One consistent feature has been the unwillingness of the Bill's promoter to deal with the points put to it at every stage of the Bill. The only item dealt with during the 20 hours or so of debate in this place was not dealt with by the promoter, but by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretarythe question of insulation. That is lamentable when one thinks of the number of hours that we have spent on this issue inside and outside the House. It is not a good advertisement for what the House can do.
	We could not stop the Bill and, reluctantly, we bow to the inevitable. It is a bad Bill, and I still oppose it. It is unnecessary; Merseytravel could exist under the current procedures if it was run properly. I ask the other place to consider the elements that we have brought forward.

Christopher Chope: The Bill is provocative and contentious, and it has been quite a spectacle for Conservative Members to watch one Labour Member fighting another on this issue. The promoter has missed a great opportunity to try to reach a compromise. Clearly it believes in bully-boy tactics, and it is no surprise to Opposition Members that it has found allies on the Government Benches.
	On the positive side, the debates have illustrated the importance of strong constituency representation. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on having fearlessly, persistently and at some considerable length deployed the arguments that needed to be deployed on behalf of their constituents. I should like to think that if those seats were represented by Conservative Members, they would have been equally diligent in defending the interests of their constituents. This is a good illustration of why proportional representation and list systems do not work, and deprive constituents of the opportunity of having people speaking out on their behalf in this House.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), said that his party had no line on the Bill, but the hon. Member for Wirral, West put us right, saying that the Liberal Democrats had consistently voted with the Government on the Bill and against the interests of those living on the Wirral peninsula. The hon. Member for Southport would have been right to say that the Liberal Democrats had not yet found a line to explain the inconsistency between their approach to the Bill and their approach to doing away with tolls on the Skye bridge, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the party. Perhaps in due course we will have a line on that.
	The Bill was conceived and started on the fallacious argument that it was needed to prevent Merseysiders having to pay a levy for a tunnel that they do not use. It has been demonstrated in the debate that that is mere scaremongering. The Bill does, however, contain powers to raise stealth taxes on tunnel users to subsidise other transport activity in Merseyside. I am afraid that it is classic double-speak, typical of the present Government.
	Conservative Members believe in a fair deal for everyone. The Bill is not fair: it is strongly opposed by local Members of Parliament and local people, and it runs contrary to the results of a consultation process. Conservatives will continue to work with others in the other place to ensure that the Bill is substantially improved.

Tony McNulty: I have a few brief points. I have been happily involved in the periphery of the Billfirst as Government Whip and now in my current positionand I wish to clarify a few small points.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said that the Bill was a precedent, but I do not see how it is a precedent in any regard. If it is about the ability to set in train regular retail prices index increases, it is certainly not unprecedented: Dartford and the Severn crossing are organised in the same way. If it is about the ability to use any surplus tolls for public transport works, it is not unprecedented because of Dartford again and the Forth system.
	It may be a measure of the length of time of the different stages that three Transport Ministers have come and goneI am the third of the threewhile the Bill has struggled through Parliament. The notion of implementing RPI increases has been put on a more solid footingit has a double lock on RPI plus increaseswhich is all to the good. It amounts almost to an adjustment to the existing system rather than the introduction of a new system and a fallback system. I believe that it will work well for those living in the area.
	A smaller pointthough a major one in terms of substance and the impact on peopleis the noise insulation works. It is, on the whole, a good part of the Bill, on which many people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. It is certainly not the Government's job to define expressly in the Bill the houses on which there may be an impact at this particular time. We are talking about a Bill that is longer in duration. I shall double-check the answer, but I think that I was right in what I said earlier about the noise insulation regulations in response to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I explained why there were qualifications in the early part of the process.
	People knock the private Bill processand Government Bills more generallyand talk about arrogance, pulling strings or exploiting contracts, but I do not agree with that. The points about honesty or dishonesty were not well made by any hon. Member. From my involvement in the Billtangentially or otherwiseI can say that there has been a good deal of honesty on all sides and a good deal of scrutiny ad debate and many well made points.
	As I have said before, the Government's position on Third Reading is entirely neutral. The Bill does not counter any element of Government policy, hence our neutrality.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PARTHENON SCULPTURES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn[Margaret Moran.]

Andrew Dismore: This debate is entitled The Return of Cultural Artefacts Held in National Collections, and in many ways the Government have a good record in this matter, given what has happened in connection with the return of works of art looted by the Nazis, or the return of ethnographic and anthropological remains. However, there is a glaring exception to the generous approach adopted by the Governmentthe Parthenon sculptures. I make no excuse for the fact that my speech will focus on them.
	I should like to express my thanks to the staff in the Library, who have given me a lot of assistance in preparing for this debate.
	The Parthenon sculptures, sometimes known as the Elgin marbles, are part of Greece's national identity. I have travelled in Greece over many years. Anyone with any knowledge of Greece, when asked to conjure up a mental image of the country or of Athens, will think of the Parthenon. That image of Greece's national identity is known world wide.
	I am pleased that the new approach of the PASOK Government has got away from some of the old and sterile arguments over the Parthenon sculptures. The argument is not now about how Lord Elgin obtained the marbles, although the method was obviously dubious, neither is it about how they came to be in the possession of the British Museum. The issue is not now the sculptures' ownership, but their location so far from their original home. The Greek Government have waived all claims in relation to other cultural objects held in national collections here, but from their point of view, the Parthenon sculptures are not negotiable and should return to their home in Athens.
	The archaeological case is very strong. Reunification of the sculptures in their original topographic, historical and cultural context would mean that they could be understood much more easily by the general public and by scholars. It must be borne in mind that not all the sculptures involved are in the British Museum. The frieze originally consisted of 111 panels, of which about 97 survive; 56 are in the British Museum, 40 remain in situ on the Parthenon or in the Acropolis museum, one is in the Louvre, and there are fragments in one or two other museums around Europe. Of the original metopes, 39 remain in situ or in the Acropolis museum, and only 15 are in the British Museum.
	Some of the sculptures are broken, with heads in one museum and torsos in another. Some fragments are in Athens, and others in London. A good example is the torso of Poseidon: the frontthe six pack, as it wereis in Athens, but the rearthe shoulders and backis in London. The sculpture has literally been split in two, with the front separated from the back, top to bottom. To view the sculptures as a whole, or to see the separate parts of the same item, it is necessary to travel the 1,500 miles between London and Athens, as 98 per cent. of the remaining sculptures are split between those two museums.
	The Parthenon cannot come to London, so the sculptures must be reunited near the Parthenon, in Athens. It is for that purpose that the Greek Government are building the new Acropolis museum. They have made it clear that reunification will happen as a result of a voluntary effort on the part of Britain. It would not entail ceding any legal title of ownership, or any rights in connection with the sculptures.
	The new museum is being built on the same alignment as the Parthenon, a little lower on the Acropolis. It will contain a shell of the same dimensions as the Parthenon, which will allow the sculptures to be displayed looking outwards. At present, in the Duveen galleries, the sculptures look inwards. The sculptures would be presented in their proper relationship to the Parthenon, and the views from the galleries would look out towards the Parthenon, allowing people to make that spatial connection.
	The sculptures would be viewed in the proper light, which can never be recreated inside the British Museum. I visited the Acropolis curator, Professor Pandermelis, and he showed me how the Parthenon was lit originally. Direct light was not used: instead, Mediterranean sunlight bounced off the polished marble pavements, lighting up the sculptures from below. We could never hope to recreate that effect in London.
	The new museum does not even have to be called the Athens museum, or the new Acropolis museum. The Greek Government have made it clear that they would be prepared to let the museum be known as the British Museum in Athens. Evangelos Venizelos, the Greek Culture Minister, said on 11 August that the Greek Government were looking at either a long-term loan or something that might take
	the form of an annexe of the British Museum in the New Acropolis Museum.
	The sculptures would not be going back to the slightly scruffy city that people over the years might have perceived Athens to be. Athens is being transformed. I am a regular visitor, and I am astounded at the progress that is being made in cleaning the city up and in making the monuments there more accessible.
	New vistas of the Parthenon itself have been opened up from central Athens. All the advertising hoardings have been taken down in Syntagma square, revealing a view of the Parthenon in the heart of Athens that had been hidden for many years. The archaeological sites have been pedestrianised to link all the different sites and enable people to move around them more freely. That includes, as a centrepiece, the new Acropolis museum, currently under construction.
	The Acropolis itself has been undergoing major restoration. The Parthenon has, in large part, been taken down and put together again to remedy some of the mistakes made in previous restoration efforts. It has been possible to restore it with many more slabs than was possible before. The Erecthion has been restored, and is now a wonderful building in its own right.
	The rebuilding of the Parthenon has been carried out in an incredibly sensitive way, involving complicated computer modelling. For example, it has been possible to match the stains in stones to make them fit together. The rebuilding has involved not just the frieze but parts of the Parthenon's physical structure: for example, one of the drums from one of the columns has been restored and is in the British Museum. Even if all the other arguments fell, it could surely be argued that that at least should be returned.
	Over the years, we have heard many arguments against the return of the artefacts. We have heard, for instance, the floodgates argument. Greece has already said that it will waive all other claims. The fact is that the Parthenon sculptures are a unique special case: they are part of Greece's national identity. With the assistance of the Library, I have examined claims from Egypt, China and many other parts of the world. They do not have that essential quality of national identity. As I said earlier, we are already considering the return of human remains, most of which were taken during the imperial years of the 19th century.

Edward O'Hara: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the power of his argument. Does he agree that the Parthenon and the other Acropolis sculptures are not just symbolic of Greek national identity but have an enormous symbolic significance for the whole of western civilisation?

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I know that he has been campaigning on this for many years, and feels very strongly about it.
	The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has set up a working group to consider the return of anthropological and ethnographic items, so no precedent is being set in that regard. The spoliation panel for the return of Nazi-looted items, for which I campaigned, has worked very effectively. Compensation has been arranged in respect of one work of art held in the Tate. I believe that there are six outstanding claims, including claims relating to four prints held by the British Museum in its print collection.
	The only difference involved is in the time that has elapsed since the objects were appropriated200 years or so in the case of the Parthenon sculptures, 100 years in the case of some of the ethnographic items and 50 or 60 years in the case of the second world war items. Such arguments could be dealt with by legal means. Some say that primary legislation would be needed, but that is not the case. The British Museum Act 1963 prohibits disposal of items in the collection except under sections 5 and 9, which clearly do not apply in this instance, or under section 6 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992, which allows exchange or transfer to a number of listed institutions. The list could be extended by statutory instrument under the negative procedure, and could include the Acropolis museum in Athens.
	Alternatively, the British Museum Act 1963 allows the keeping of objects in authorised repositories identified in section 10 and schedule 3. That list is also amendable through the negative statutory instrument procedure, and could include, for example, the British Museum annexe in Athens, as the Act does not require the trustees to be the owners of the repository or that the repository should be in the United Kingdom. The position could be made clear and watertight by primary legislationby, for example, specifying sculptures referred to in section 5(1) of the 1963 Act. That, however, would be a belt-and-braces approach, and unnecessary in my view. There are plenty of easy ways in which the same end could be legally achieved.
	There are wider cultural benefits too. In particular, there is the offer from the Greeks of return exhibitions. In his evidence to the Select Committee, George Papandreou said that he would not leave the galleries empty. On 11 August Evangelos Venizelos, the Greek Culture Minister, said:
	Our proposal includes the offer of a series of important temporary exhibitions of Greek antiquities in the British Museum as well as other regional museums in the United Kingdom.
	I am sure that hon. Members remember the Tutankhamen exhibition in the summer of 1972. In six months, 1.6 million visitors queued for up to eight hours to visit the British Museum, paying 50p for the privilege, which would be about 4 nowadays. Applying inflation to that earlier entry fee could raise 6 million for the finances of the museum. That exhibition was the most popular in the history of the museum.
	What is on offer from Greece could easily rival or even surpass that exhibition, as anybody who has visited Greek archaeological collections would know. It would also comply with the policy objectives that my right hon. Friend the Minister outlined recently. Such exhibitions would popularise the British Museum and open it to people who would not normally visit it. We already know from television programmes such as those presented by Tony Robinson how popular archaeology is becoming with children, young people and adults alike. The whole country could benefit not only from exhibitions at the British Museum but also from touring exhibitions. However, without the return of the Parthenon sculptures there is no prospect of such exchange exhibitions.
	The money raised by such exhibitions could in large part be the answer to the BM's financial difficulties. There would be an income stream from special exhibitions and possibly, also, from exhibiting the Parthenon sculptures in Athens. In the museum's July 2003 accounts, it predicted staff reductions of 150 and cuts of 2 million by 200405. Gallery closures already occur constantly at the British Museum, including the gallery housing the Bassai sculptures from a temple, not dissimilar to the Parthenon, in the Peloponnese. All the sculptures are in good condition and much more accessible to the non-expert so it is a scandal that people cannot see them because of the museum's financial position. Exchange exhibitions could also support the BM's acquisitions fund.
	There would be wider political benefits from the return of the sculpturesfor example, for our Olympic bid. If we returned the sculptures this year, we would be seen to be helping another Olympic city in its Olympic year, especially by the International Olympic Committee, which is based in Athens for the games. What a boost it would give to our Olympic bid if we entered into the Olympic spirit in that way.
	Britain's international reputation would be enhanced politically and culturally, throughout Europe, in UNESCO, which has raised the issue, and in the Commonwealth. The Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand have both written to support the case for return.
	Germany has returned archaeological remains from the Philippeon, a temple at Olympia, which brought a wonderful international response and, in turn, the loan to Berlin of a magnificent touring sculpture exhibition. The catalogue itself was the same size as a telephone directory. At present, such an exhibition would never come to London.
	There is popular support for the proposal. About 90 per cent. of the respondents in a Channel 4 poll were in favour of the return of the sculptures. In a poll of MPs, 66 per cent. of all Members and 88 per cent. of Labour Members supported the return. So far, there are 50 names on early-day motion 17.
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reply that the matter is entirely for the British Museum trustees, although if she does I shall disagree. The refusal, so far, of the trustees to deal with the problem adversely affects their finances; it limits public access to their collections and the finance available to other institutions through the drain on national finances to support the British Museum and by depriving museums throughout the country of the income that they could generate through special exhibitions. The refusal affects our wider cultural life by preventing our citizens from seeing the popular and accessible exhibitions of artefacts that Greece would lend us. It has an impact on our Olympic bid, which could be enhanced by the generous gesture of the return. Furthermore, it has an impact on our international reputation, culturally and politically.

Edward O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend agree that repatriation of the sculptures and sharing responsibility for them would be in accordance with the Museums and Galleries Commission guidelines on restitution and repatriation, which have been widely supported by the Museums Association and many museums both in this country and abroad?

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I was about to discuss that point. I think that the British Museum trustees have had a dog-in-the-manger approach, which is depriving museums throughout the country of the benefits that would flow from the return of the Parthenon sculptures.
	Greece, under the enlightened approach of the PASOK Government, has made major concessions. It has made generous proposals, offering return exhibitions in return for the sculptures, mainly through the new museum in Athens, and it has made concessions relating to the claim for ownership. That is an offer that we cannot and should not refuse. Our Government should give a powerful steer to the British Museum trustees to stop this dog-in-the-manger approach and to allow return of the marbles to Athens for its Olympic year.

Estelle Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing the debate and openly acknowledge his personal and professional interest in this matter. This is not the first time that he has raised the issue with Ministersme and my predecessorsand no doubt it will not be the last. I also acknowledge the long-standing interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). I was pleased that he was able to intervene because it was right and proper, given the attention that he has paid to the issue in the past.
	Rarely have I replied to an Adjournment debate in which the hon. Member who secured the debate had already guessed what I would say. At the point when I realised that that was the case, I almost gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon my 14 minutes, because he is right that I will say again that it is a matter for the British Museum. I want to expand on that and respond to some of the issues that he raised, but that essentially remains the United Kingdom Government's position.
	I can unite with my hon. Friends in saying that the fact that this is such a long-standing debate, and the fact that it draws such passions from both the United Kingdom and Greece, shows the importance of artefacts and of national heritage to us all, in Europe and beyond. In some ways that proves the point that I am constantly trying to make in my current role: that our past and our history and how we use that to interpret our present and plan for our future is an important part of being a human being and an important part of civilisation. It is because of the importance of the Parthenon sculptures to that part of our national and international life that they create such a strong impression and give rise to such strong feelings.
	I want to put it on the record that I entirely understand the case my hon. Friend makes. I entirely understand the passions of those in Greece who want the sculptures taken back to Greece, and who think that is a proper place for them to be shown, and I understand what that means to people who live there. However, I entirely understand the feelings of the trustees of the British Museum. At the British Museum, they are trying to show not just British history but world history, and they have 10,000 artefacts there from all the continents of the planet. It is not a case of the Parthenon sculptures looking out of place among what are essentially British exhibits. It is a British Museum that gives a perspective on world development and world history for all visitors to the museum to see.

Edward O'Hara: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Estelle Morris: I will give way, but possibly only once unless my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon wants to intervene once as well.
	Both sides speak with passion and conviction. I acknowledge that both of them are sincere.

Edward O'Hara: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that to the British Museum collection the Parthenon sculptures are exemplars of high Greek culturesupreme examples, yes, but exemplars, whereas in Athens they are regarded as absolutely essential exhibits in the wider archaeological context that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) described? The Greeks are prepared to give numerous other exemplars, which would encyclopaedically fulfil the same purpose in the British Museum collection.

Estelle Morris: In a way, my hon. Friend makes the case for me, but it is because they are so important, and such important exemplars, that the British Museum trustees think that the sculptures are such a fundamental part of their collection. There are artefacts, there are individual items and there are collections, and when it comes to the point of collections and how things are presented as a collection, it is the trustees' decision to keep them together, and keep them in the British Museum. In terms of interpreting world history, the museum feels that all the artefacts that it has from all the continents are important to the collection. If they were not there, an important part of that collection would be missing.
	The director of the British Museum has said that he sees the aim of the museum to
	hold for the benefit of humanity a collection representative of world cultures and ensure that the collection is housed in safety, conserved, curated, researched, exhibited and made available to the widest possible public.
	In that sense, it is a universal museum.

Andrew Dismore: rose

Estelle Morris: I shall give way, but only once, otherwise I will not do justice to the many important matters that my hon. Friend raised.

Andrew Dismore: This is a brief point, which I made in my speech. How can the Parthenon sculptures be looked at properly when half are in one place and half in the other? Surely that is the judgment of Solomon, which is against the interests of any true academic.

Estelle Morris: As my hon. Friend pointed out in his speech, the sculptures are not complete. Some parts have been lost and those that remain are not all in the same place. The notion of bringing them together so that the sculpture looks as it did all those years ago is not an option.
	I understand my hon. Friend's argument. His judgment and, clearly, that in parts of Greece is that the sculpture holds greater cultural and historical significance there than in the British Museum. That is the case that is put forward. The British Museum case is that the sculpture is an important part of a world collection that has a clear message about world development. Therein lies the huge difference of opinion, which has been argued over for many years.
	The Government's view remains that this is a decision for the British Museum and the trustees. Our relationship with the museum, as with all our national museums and galleries, is one of arm's length. In other circumstances, hon. Members would be standing here welcoming that and saying that it is rightthat we do not want Governments to run national museums and galleries, and that there should be an arm's-length relationship with them under which they can take decisions about the collections and the future free from political interference. In this case, hon. Members ask for political direction, but that would be counter to the relationship that this Government and our predecessor Governments have built up with museums.
	There is a general acknowledgement that, because of the deeds under which it was set up, the museum is not able to dispose of any of the artefacts to other countries or collections. That is because it rightly has an obligation to secure those artefacts and items for successive generations. I accept that museums in general can put exhibits on loan. I was at the British Museum recently and I heard of items that had been on loan to other museums in the United Kingdom. I accept that, in legal terms, museums can loan items, but they cannot dispose of them.
	I cannot go into detail here, but I have had advice from lawyers in the Department. My hon. Friend quoted certain laws and although primary legislation might not be necessary, the House would certainly have to consider statutory instruments; but those laws cover only the United Kingdom. Lawyers tell us that under both the legislation on repositories and that to which he referred, the artefacts could not go beyond the UK. A statutory instrument could be used to extend the number of places in the UK that could act as repositories, but it would not be legally possible for such places to be outside the UK.
	The position is not as clear cut as my hon. Friend would have us believe. There is not an easy way for legislation to be put before the House to allow the sculptures to be loaned abroad.

Edward O'Hara: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Estelle Morris: No, I will come back to the matter if I find that I have time before 7.30 pm.
	Even if the law allowed the sculptures to be loaned abroad, that decision is one for the British Museum. With any loan, it must take certain things into account. This is not a reflection on the work that Greece would do or the way that it would handle any artefacts on loan, and it ought not to be interpreted in that way, but the British Museum and any other institution would have to consider where the artefacts were going, who would have access to them, whether they would be curated properly, whether they would be safe and whether they would be returned. That is the proper process through which museums and galleries would need to go. That is not a slight on the Greek authorities. They have lovely institutions, given their history, and their plans for the Acropolis will be greatly admired. However, it is a matter for the British Museum and its trustees. By law they cannot dispose of items, but they can loan them.
	The subject gets huge publicity in this country and in Greece. I understand its importance, but it sometimes hides the very good working relationship between the British Museum and its professional colleagues in Greece on other matters. Indeed, the British Museum is lending items and artefacts to be shown at the cultural Olympiad as part of the Olympic games in Athens. There are channels of communication; people do speak to each other. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, the debate is different now from 10 years ago. It has moved on from ownership, with the Greek authorities accepting loans in return for other artefacts. As a Minister, I will not comment on the nature of that relationship because it is a matter for the museum. We can all note, however, that the debate is moving on and taking place beyond the Chamber, among professional colleagues.
	I suspect that this is not the last time the subject will be debated in the House. The nature of the debate is changing as the dialogue between our two countries changes. I am interested in that as a Minister and a citizen, and I am pleased that it takes place, but our position will remain as set out in statute. I do not want any Minister to be in the position of telling our museums and galleries what to do with their collections. They are precious and valuable. It is right that museums and galleries are guided by legislation and given direction by the Government of the day, but the arm's-length relationship is important.

Edward O'Hara: I refer my right hon. Friend to the Museums and Galleries Bill, which I presented in February 2002. It provides an instrument for tidying up the problem encountered by museum trustees.

Estelle Morris: I shall pursue that as soon as the debate finishes and drop my hon. Friend a note because I have not perused his Bill. I suspect that if it did provide the solution, my officials would have told me about it. As I am not sure that I am giving a robust answer, I shall certainly look at it.
	I understand the passions on both sides of the argument, and I applaud people who argue their case, but it is not as easy and straightforward as my hon. Friends intimate. I suspect, however, that the debate will continue. It is not the same debate as we had 10 years ago. No doubt the future debate will be different from tonight's debate. The Government's position is as I laid it out. I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions and rest my case.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.